The recent developments and discussions in Taiwan regarding the cross-strait service trade agreement with China emphasise an important dilemma: Does the country’s path toward liberalization, globalization and a place in regional trade bodies go through Beijing or not?
There is no doubt that during past decades Beijing has been a major stumbling block for Taiwan’s development of better economic — and to an even greater degree, political — ties with other nations.
Time and again, Beijing has obstructed Taiwan’s participation in a myriad of organizations and agreements, claiming that Taiwan should be considered a part of China.
This Chinese claim does not have any legal or factual basis. Taiwan has been ruled independently for more than six decades, while until 1945 it was a Japanese colony. Also, Taiwan’s transition to democracy in the late 1980s consolidated its existence as a free and democratic nation that can justifiably claim equal treatment as a member of the international community.
That Taiwan has not been accorded this equal treatment is solely due to political pressure from a rising China, which is preventing other nations from developing normal relations with Taiwan.
So how does Taiwan break out of this isolation imposed on it by a large and undemocratic neighbor?
One way would be to attempt to accommodate Beijing and seek its agreement through the establishment of closer economic and cultural ties.
This is basically the present approach.
Some observers think that Taiwan should “take a chance” with China by moving closer to it economically. They say that the road to liberalization goes through Beijing.
I disagree. That approach is fraught with danger, as it makes Taiwan increasingly dependent on the whims of a Chinese regime that is pertinently undemocratic and has not shown itself to be a constructive player in the international community.
As we have seen with Tibet, East Turkestan and Hong Kong, once a territory is firmly in China’s orbit, there is very little regard for basic freedoms or democracy.
This accommodating approach also exposes Taiwan’s economy to significant dangers if and when there is a downturn in China’s economy. Many prominent analysts such as George Soros are predicting that it is simply a matter of time.
Taiwan thus urgently needs to diversify outward from its economic dependence on China.
So, the road to liberalization and globalization obviously does not lead through Beijing. On the contrary, the path should be based on a clear and stated conviction on the part of Taiwan that it intends to play a full role internationally, and on acceptance of Taiwan by the international community as an equal player.
Taiwan will be taken seriously internationally if it can present itself as a significant player, both economically and politically.
It does need to open its economy to the world, but it can do that best by establishing better trade and investment ties with other democratic countries in the region, such as Japan, South Korea and nations like the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, and of course the US and Western Europe. Diversification is the word.
Credibility as a trading partner will also be enhanced if it is seen as a fully functional democracy, if the political system is seen to have adequate checks and balances and trade agreements are handled with transparency, balance and fairness.
Taiwan’s international marginalization and political isolation can end, but it requires more vision in Taipei as well as Washington.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS