Since the start of the New Year, significant changes have occurred in the realm of international economics. With the formal introduction of the euro, Europe took a giant leap toward currency integration. In addition, six southeast Asian countries began implementation of zero-tariff policies, a milestone in the establishment of an ASEAN free-trade area. These two events are of major importance to both global and regional economies, but will have little immediate effect on Taiwan.
On Dec. 11, China joined the WTO, closely followed by Taiwan on Jan. 1. Taiwan will now compete directly with China and the rest of the world, something sure to have major short- and mid-term impacts on Taiwan's economy.
Taiwan has prepared for over a decade to join the WTO and has already opened 94 percent of all agricultural product areas to imports. Following WTO entry, Taiwan will only need to liberalize the remaining 6 percent. Restrictions on the majority of this 6 percent have to do with China trade.
The further liberalization of agricultural imports will result in farmland being reduced by 53,000 hectares. Approximately 18,000 to 27,000 farmers will have to find new jobs. By 2004, the production value of the agricultural sector will have dropped by NT$38.5 billion.
China is the last piece in Taiwan's jigsaw puzzle of economic internationalization. After joining the WTO, Taiwan must now open its markets to China. The decision to do so is a double-edged sword. After opening up trade, Taiwan will enjoy the benefits of an open Chinese market. But its dependence on the Chinese economy will deepen and hence, Taiwan's ability to resist China will be greatly reduced.
The entry of Chinese products is sure to have a devastating effect on Taiwanese agricultural products. To minimize this impact, the Cabinet yesterday announced that it would adopt special WTO safeguards against Chinese imports for an unspecified transitional period. Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (
Taiwan stressed before WTO entry that it does not intend to invoke "safeguard" measures. According to WTO rules, however, Taiwan has the right to invoke safeguard mechanisms, including: general safeguard provisions in case of unforeseen political or economic circumstances, countervailing duties and anti-dumping provisions and special safeguards for agricultural products. Certainly, China can raise objections after Taiwan invokes the safeguard mechanisms. The two sides can then engage in trade negotiations or seek WTO arbitration -- on an equal playing field.
Special safeguard measures can be adopted for 14 out of the 22 agricultural products that the Council of Agriculture plans to designate as applicable to tariff quotas. It will result in only a minor delay in the opening up of Taiwan's markets. Of the nine items that involve an opening to Chinese imports -- rice, garlic, peanuts, poultry, pork and dairy products and others -- those involving the livestock industry also carry disease inspection and quarantine problems, which cannot be resolved if China refuses to negotiate.
Adopting safeguard measures does not mean Taiwan doesn't make good on its promises. Major changes in the business and trade environment have made it necessary for Taiwan to seek more time and space for adjustments.
Before WTO entry, China was unwilling to conduct the necessary negotiations with Taiwan, insisting instead on "one China" as a political precondition. This had led to inadequate preparations on both sides.
Taiwan is preparing to to open up its market to all countries, including China. But the special situation across the Strait necessitates the adoption of safeguards. It cannot be helped. If the two sides sincerely seek solutions to trade and economic differences under the WTO framework, both will come out ahead.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS