Li Qiang (
To no one's surprise, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) welcomed the offer in no time and indicated that promoting cross-strait economic cooperation and establishing a cross-strait common market are critical economic issues for the KMT-People First Party (PFP) alliance. Such a blatant response shows how like-minded the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are.
China stressed that a cross-strait CEPA must follow the economic model built between Beijing and Hong Kong, suggesting that direct links be opened beforehand. Obviously, what Beijing really wanted was opening direct links under the "one China" framework. Opening direct links is also the main pursuit of the KMT and the pan-blue camp. So on the issue of direct links, the positions of the CCP and the KMT-PFP alliance easily with each.
Is the CEPA a cure-all for Taiwan's economy? The pact in fact is a kind of ecstasy pill, alluring but fatal.
Experience tells us that economic integration only works between economies that have close per capita incomes and production prices. If there is a large gap in their per capita incomes and the lower-income economy is far bigger than the higher-income one (the size of an economy is usually determined by the size of population and land), then the smaller economy will be diluted by the big one.
The rate of dilution depends on the pace of the economic integration. The faster the integration is, the faster the small economy will be diluted.
A recent example is Hong Kong after 1997. Since its return to Chinese rule, the territory has witnessed economic recession, unemployment and a slump in housing prices. The CEPA was an emergency remedy offered by Beijing to prevent Hong Kong's economy from being diluted. It may have a short-term effect on Hong Kong's already hollowed-out economy, but its long-term effect is yet to be seen.
What happened to Hong Kong after 1997 will happen to Taiwan if we sign a CEPA with China. So do we want to repeat Hong Kong's mistakes?
Fortunately, our Mainland Affairs Council officials have made it clear that the CEPA is a product of Beijing's "one China, two systems" formula. Hopefully, our sober government officials can insist on this point and bear in mind that we are one country on each side of the Strait.
Economic independence is our last line of defense, and it must not be compromised by pressure imposed by interest groups. Similarly, the public must not be intimidated by the pro-unification media but open their eyes to see through China's tricks.
We should use public opinion and our votes to force the KMT and the pan-blue alliance to abandon their policy of promoting a "Chinese Economic Community." Establishing either direct links or an economic community is good only for conglomerates and China, but bad for the unemployed and those who make Taiwan their home.
Because Taiwan is an island situated in the Pacific Ocean, that's where the nation's future lies. Around the Pacific rim are the US, Japan and our long-term Latin American allies. With the help of these countries in technology and capital, our economy can avoid being diluted.
Therefore, there is no way that Taiwan will become isolated. Let's bravely say "no" to the CEPA as well as to the idea of a "Chinese Community."
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Jennie Shih
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS