A while back, I wrote an article on the free-trade agreement (FTA) between China and South Korea and how it would benefit Taiwan (“Beijing-Seoul FTA suits Taiwan,” Aug. 1, page 8).
However, people have scoffed at the idea as being a bit odd, and no one has dared use the article to challenge President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) and his administration’s use of the Chinese-South Korean FTA currently under negotiation to scare the public into demanding the quick passage of the cross-strait service trade and trade in goods agreements and the draft bill on free economic pilot zones — three laws that would be harmful to the nation.
At the Global Economic Symposium held in Kuala Lumpur from Sept. 6 to Sept. 8, Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz warned National Development Council Minister Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) that hasty attempts to sign free-trade pacts could lead to a “modern Opium War” and that many such accords are unfair and benefit only a single country or group.
Due to the geographical proximity between Taiwan and China, shared cultural factors such as language, historical factors such as China’s claims to sovereignty over Taiwan, political factors such as the huge size difference between Taiwan and China and China’s use of economic means to try to restrict Taiwan politically, Taiwan has always suffered from the problems of a small nation, such as the center-periphery effect, with big China making up the center and small Taiwan existing on China’s periphery. This is what makes the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) the kind of free-trade agreement that Stiglitz was saying could lead to a modern Opium War, with Taiwan the only victim.
This is why the signing of the ECFA never created the “golden decade” that the Ma administration kept talking up for the three years following the signing, but instead caused capital in general and productive capital in particular to flow over to China, while productive foreign investment pulled back from Taiwan. In addition, economic growth was drastically cut — by 1.48 percentage points in 2012 and 2.09 percentage points last year — and salaries dropped to the levels of 16 years ago. The service trade and trade in goods agreements will only further harm Taiwan.
South Korea’s FTA policy began in 2011 with the EU and the US, but it still has not produced any clear results. All that has been seen is the end of the “South Korean miracle.”
After the signing of an FTA between China and South Korea, China’s pull on that nation, while not as strong as its pull on Taiwan, will still be considerable. That South Korea has repeatedly lowered its economic growth estimate this year is just the first sign of things to come.
If Taiwan and China do not sign the trade in goods agreement, will that mean that it is “game over” for Taiwan? Last year, the Ma administration said the nation would be stifled if it did not sign the service trade pact, but after the Sunflower movement prevented the deal being rushed through the legislature, the economy has begun a slow recovery and exports have increased for six straight months. This shows that the service trade and the trade in goods agreements are not panaceas, but rather anticoagulants, causing Taiwan to hemorrhage. One can only hope that the opposition will start to see this clearly.
The nation does not need a Taiwanese “Opium War,” nor does it want to become the victim of economic colonization. Stiglitz is of the same opinion, and we cannot really doubt a Nobel laureate, can we?
Huang Tien-lin is former president and chairman of First Commercial Bank and a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged