Over the past weeks there have been a number of statements by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration to the effect that Taiwan has not made sufficient progress toward trade liberalization because of the stalled cross-strait service trade agreement, causing Taiwan to fall behind South Korea, its main competitor.
The government is of course blaming the delay on the Sunflower movement and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), accusing them of impeding Taiwan’s inclusion in international free-trade agreements.
In the meantime, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) portrays China as the gatekeeper to Taiwan’s participation in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as well as free-trade agreements with other nations, saying that “progress” needs to be made in the agreements with China before the nation can move toward other agreements.
There is a US colloquialism that sums up this argument perfectly: “Hogwash,” meaning “pertinently untrue” or even “utter nonsense.” Here is why.
First, it is crystal clear that China is inhibiting and constraining Taiwan in its attempt to gain more international space. What does the Ma administration do in response? Try to get closer to China. This is an utterly self-defeating approach, which will only lead Taiwan into a one-way alley toward Beijing.
Second, the cross-strait service trade agreement — and the proposed trade-in-goods agreement and the proposed free economic pilot zones — would not help Taiwan in its economic development and trade liberalization, but severely damage it.
The reason is that these agreements would undermine Taiwan’s industrial, agricultural and service base: Even more jobs would disappear and Taiwan would be flooded by Chinese goods and services, leaving little room for Taiwan’s own industry, agriculture and services.
Third, accepting China as a “gatekeeper” for Taiwan’s participation in regional trade organizations and bilateral trade agreements is tantamount to giving up the nation’s sovereignty. Taiwan needs to be self-confident and rely on its own strengths, and refuse to give China an excuse to choke its freedom to act in its own interests or in broader regional interests. Beijing itself is the reason other countries are hesitant to sign free-trade agreements with Taiwan, and it is highly deceptive, and even immoral, for the Ma government to pretend otherwise.
Last but not least, from many discussions with DPP representatives and the Sunflower movement, it has become apparent they are very outward-looking and highly supportive of real trade liberalization for Taiwan.
However, this real trade liberalization does not come about by cozying up to China. On the contrary: it would only come about if Taiwan distances itself from a repressive and authoritarian China, and builds up its own confidence to engage in international trade agreements in a democratic and transparent fashion — something that has been sorely lacking under Ma’s administration.
Taiwan can and should move toward true trade liberalization, but — as former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton said in June in an interview with Taiwan Business Weekly — avoid becoming economically over-reliant on China, which would entail it losing its economic and political independence.
Such real trade liberalization would require difficult choices for Taiwanese: there is a need for structural economic reform, simplifying the legal structures, cleaning up the bureaucratic red tape, investing in innovation and upgrading the manufacturing sector. All of that needs to be done in a democratic and transparent manner, so that society as a whole is brought to a new level and nobody is left behind.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his