On Feb. 21, 1972, US president Richard Nixon traveled to China. A week later, the Shanghai Communique was announced in the city after whose name the agreement was named. In this document, the US stated: "All Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States government does not challenge that position."
Nixon thus found a legitimate excuse to abandon Taiwan for China, and he was right: Beijing stated that Taiwan is a part of China while Taipei said the mainland is within the territory of the Republic of China. The idea of "One China" was used by both Taipei and Beijing at that time.
Unfortunately this formulation caused a misunderstanding among our allies and deprived Taiwan of its rightful place on the international stage.
Thirty-four years later, Beijing and Taiwan have a new common phrase: "economic one China." Beijing's policy of using economics to hasten unification is obviously an economic "one China" policy, but the more subtle point is that Taiwan is singing the same tune, with calls for economic integration and a common market. With "economic one China," Beijing and Taipei are once again pursuing a common goal.
The opposition, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in particular, has pushed for this longest and hardest. A few days ago, 44 pan-blue legislators suggested amending to Article 34 of the Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例). The amendment clearly states that the government may not prohibit any products or business items that have already entered mass production in China. The KMT has further suggested a referendum on direct cross-strait flights. The goal is to complement Beijing's "economic one China" and fulfill the ultimate "one China" goal.
But if the KMT's efforts do not receive the government's cooperation and permission, it will be impossible for it to build the necessary momentum to bind Taiwan to China through this means.
On the surface, the government opposes the pan-blue camp's amendment proposal and does not support realizing direct flights through legislation.
However, it does not oppose the pan-blue camp's goals of direct flights, allowing Taiwanese banks to invest in China and raising the legal limit on investment in China. At an economic development conference last year, the government brought up each of those three issues. It was abundantly clear that the government is hoping to become more involved in China's economic rise and to accomplishing economic integration with it.
At the end of the conference, a few Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators -- mostly from the former New Tide faction -- signed a petition calling for relaxed restrictions on China-bound investments and strongly defending economic policy aiming at integration with China.
Taiwan is a democracy with a free market economy, and business leaders have a greater chance to participate in and influence policymaking. This is especially true for China-based Taiwanese businesspeople and foreign investors in Taiwan who have teamed up with pro-China academics and media.
The increase in China-bound investments has already led to the creation of irresistible pressure groups with tight control over Taiwan's economic debate and public opinion. The call to make Taiwan a stepping stone to the world has disappeared in a puff of smoke. During the seven years the DPP has been in power, top policy makers have either talked about the imperative need for direct flights and how further deregulation is unavoidable, or praised the contributions of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople to China and affirmed their support for the go west policy.
A few days ago in Taichung, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) said Taichung would not miss out on cross-strait direct flights. This seemed to mean that direct flights are already are in the works. With this official approach, it would be difficult for business not to go to China. Chinese production grows annually and more than a million Taiwanese are long-term residents in China. Cross-strait economic integration is closer than any of the bilateral relationships between France, Spain, Germany and Poland -- so much so that "economic one China" can no longer be used in the future tense.
This has influenced the wording regarding direct flights in the latest annual white paper from the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, which states that since direct flights are necessary, why not "just do it," as the commercial goes? That's a pretty natural and logical response.
Diplomacy is the extension of domestic policy. In 1972, Taiwan's "one China" policy tempted Nixon and resulted in the joint Sino-US Shanghai Communique. In the last few years, "economic one China" has been on the lips of both the government and the opposition and it is becoming obvious that this once again is leading to another misunderstanding on the part of the US.
Autumn begins with one falling leaf; the American Institute in Taiwan's misinterpretation of Taiwan's economic future is only a first sign.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Jason Cox and Perry Svensson
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS