Taiwan’s bid to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) offers an opportunity to globalize its economy and move away from excessive reliance on China.
As with any agreement, the TPP would offer both benefits and drawbacks, and so it is both an opportunity and a challenge, which comes with a price. The price should be paid to the nation’s friends rather than an ungrateful enemy who only wants to annex it.
The only concern of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is how to step down safely, so it is not expected to take action on the nation’s TPP bid, as this would run counter to Ma’s pro-China policy.
Minister of Economic Affairs John Deng (鄧振中) made an inappropriate remark not too long ago, saying that Taiwan would only be able to enter the TPP if China did not oppose it, because China is the largest market of half of the member states, which, according to him, are likely to have their own concerns regarding the matter.
Since China still has not taken an official stance on Taiwan’s TPP bid, why did Deng speak on Beijing’s behalf? China’s opposition to Taiwan’s bid is to be expected, because Beijing does not want the nation to escape from its economic cage. China wants to join the TPP so that it can change the rules from the inside or cause trouble as it did in the UN and the WTO.
However, the TPP’s strict rules demand that member states follow universal values, which means that it is almost impossible for China to enter the partnership. It would not be able to join as a developing nation and enjoy the accompanying benefits as it did with the WTO.
Although the regulations did not specifically target China when the US launched the TPP talks in 2005, they are now seen as China’s nemesis. Since China wants to join the TPP to promote its “One Belt, One Road” strategy, it is unlikely to criticize the partnership or block Taiwan’s bid. The nation should seize this opportunity to focus its efforts instead of belittling itself and asking for Beijing’s approval.
China is the largest trade partner of eight of the 12 TPP members: Australia, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam (the remaining members are Brunei, Canada, Mexico and the US).
Would these nations oppose Taiwan’s bid due to Chinese pressure? Are they Beijing’s friends? What would be their reasons for opposing Taiwan’s entry to the TPP? If they oppose Taiwan’s bid simply because China says so, would they not in effect become China’s vassal states?
Deng said that TPP members would have their own concerns. However, they probably think like Taiwan and want to reduce their economic dependence on China. Since Beijing often relies on political economy, using economic means to achieve political goals, these nations could join Taiwan in opposing China.
Also, during Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) visits to the US and Japan, both governments showed a positive attitude toward the nation’s bid to join the trade bloc.
Is the combination of the US’ and Japan’s economic influence inferior to China’s? Is Taiwan only pushing for a passive TPP membership, incapable of persuading all member states?
The Chinese Communist Party claims that the Republic of China (ROC) perished long ago.
If ROC officials must follow China’s whim in the performance of their duties, that is evidence of the seriousness of the Ma administration’s maladies.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past