The US, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations earlier this month reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), after about seven years of negotiations.
The agreement, which is still subject to lawmakers’ approval in individual nations before it can take effect, is to cover about 40 percent of the global economy and aims to eliminate more than 18,000 tariffs.
Taiwan is not part of the nascent 12-member trade bloc and this exclusion has raised concerns over the long-term impact on the nation’s international trade.
While South Korea is also excluded from the TPP, it has signed several bilateral free-trade agreements with TPP members to cushion a potential impact from its exclusion. Sadly, Taiwan lags far behind South Korea in this regard.
Both China and India last week appeared to speed up talks over the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) — a 16-nation Asian equivalent to the TPP — for fear of losing ground to the US-backed multilateral trade bloc.
Unfortunately, Taiwan is not a member of the RCEP either, which has raised further concerns that the nation’s export-reliant economy could be marginalized as other nations in the region push for trade liberalization.
If Taiwan were able to join one of the two trade blocks, the impact on its trade would be mitigated; while a dual membership in both would offer a higher level of security. The government has said that it would like to join the TPP in its second stage of expansion and has prioritized joining the TPP over the RCEP, because China plays a less important role in the trans-Pacific bloc.
In terms of negative impacts on foreign demand, exclusion from the TPP would lead to a diversion of trade and foreign direct investment from Taiwan. Even so, do Taiwanese really understand what joining the TPP would mean, be it the positive or negative implications? Is Taiwan ready to participate in comprehensive, high-standard trade agreements such as the TPP?
In addition to eliminating 18,000 tariffs, the TPP also aims to set up a legal framework for the protection of intellectual property rights, enforce standards for labor regulation and environmental law, seek a common set of origin rules and create an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that would allow companies to sue governments, among other issues.
The TPP would help boost Taiwan’s exports and expand domestic companies’ overseas activities. However, it would also mean the opening up of domestic markets and services, such as government procurement processes, the industrial sector, agricultural products and services, and financial services. This would have a negative impact on industries in relatively disadvantageous positions in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors.
Hence, if the government decides that TPP would bring more benefits than harm in the long term, it would signify the arrival of major structural economic changes and legal revisions. Moreover, the government must carry out preparatory work to ease public concerns over what many see as a lack of transparency and public dialogue after the controversial cross-strait service trade agreement was inked with China, which led to the Sunflower movement in March last year.
Regardless of who wins the January’s presidential election, the government must not keep the public, or lawmakers, in the dark about TPP negotiations. Rather, policymakers must work hard to educate the public on the urgency of participation in the TPP and about what the government can do to help those in disadvantageous positions.
Being prepared would have a major effect on the outcome of Taiwan’s TPP bid, which is key to the nation’s economic prosperity and security in the long term.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers