Beijing has been sending signals that it might significantly reduce the number of Chinese allowed to visit Taiwan up until Jan. 15. This has caused widespread worry among travel agencies.
Data validates this message: the number of Chinese applicants on Dec. 3 was a mere 2,161, only 20 percent of the daily quota. However, when calmly considering the big picture, despite a temporary, albeit considerable, impact as a result of the drop in the number of Chinese visitors, the Beijing policy could prompt Taiwan’s tourism industry to develop normally.
Taiwanese travel agencies can capitalize on any adversity a decrease in Chinese tourists might bring by establishing client bases in Europe and Japan and training English-speaking and Japanese-speaking tour guides, which would maximize tourism resources. Similarly, Beijing has more than once warned Taiwan that the “one China” policy is the political foundation on which cross-strait interactions can take place. If the foundation is absent, Taiwan-China relations are bound to be shaky. However, there is no way to tell what Beijing means by “shaky.”
Is it suggesting that the service trade agreement and the trade in goods agreement would be halted?
Incidentally, that is precisely what the student movements have been trying relentlessly to achieve. Both agreements are to subject Taiwanese industry to the whims of the Chinese economy, something neither the public in general nor young people in particular want. Is Beijing suggesting the termination of the 21 cross-strait agreements, including the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA)?
As far as Taiwanese are concerned, that is not really a threat, because after the ECFA was signed, what Taiwanese have gotten in return are not benefits, but a year-by-year decrease in domestic investment and GDP growth. The younger generation has had enough of the depressed economy and an average minimum monthly paycheck of NT$22,000. If Beijing’s warning comes to fruition, the nation could use the opportunity to free itself of the bondage that cross-strait agreements imposed on it, thereby opening itself up to the wider world.
Perhaps Beijing would take more aggressive measures. For example, ordering Chinese companies to stop purchasing Taiwanese products, including products made by China-based Taiwanese companies. However, this involves China’s obligations to fulfill international treaties, such as the WTO’s Information Technology Agreement. Even if China were to ram this through with its considerable might as a major nation, its ability to keep its commitments to international agreements would be questioned. Everything comes at a price.
Losing the Chinese market would be difficult and possibly even be fatal for some Taiwanese industries, but a crisis can often turn out to be an opportunity, which could enable the economy and industries to rise from the ashes, encourage investment in Taiwan and facilitate market diversification. In four years, a new and well-off economy could surely emerge.
Perhaps Beijing is suggesting that it would isolate Taiwan? This is one of the frequently talked about options to cause major disruptions in the nation, albeit most unlikely to happen. Isolation is, after all, an international matter, and it would only push Taiwan closer toward the alliance between the US, Japan and the Philippines. History shows that economic isolation is rarely successful. Most attempts end in failure.
The real purpose of staging a meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) was so Ma could make a joint announcement with Xi to the whole world that the “Taiwanese president” acknowledges the “one China” policy, which says that Taiwan is part of China, thus implicitly binding future presidents to abide by the so-called “1992 consensus.” The problem is, the cross-strait relationship according to the “1992 consensus” over the past eight years has proved to be an economic colonial relationship, causing the Taiwanese economy to collapse and become dependent on the Chinese economy. Eight years of misery under Ma’s rule is more than enough. Just say no to the “one China” ideology that the meeting was campaigning for.
Worried the sky might fall? Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) said: “Before Heaven bestows a great responsibility upon someone, it always lets his mind be tormented, his muscles be burdened and his stomach be starved.”
Trials and tribulations are how the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) can remain in power after its expected win next month. If, on the contrary, the DPP is willing to make compromises and surrender Taiwan to China to get Beijing to agree not to “shake up” the nation, then even if the DPP achieve a landslide victory in the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections, it would not stay in power more than one term.
Huang Tien-lin is a former president and chairman of First Commercial Bank and a former Presidential Office adviser.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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