On March 22, many people attended a forum held by Taiwan Thinktank in Kaohsiung City. They chose to participate in the event because they were worried about the “economic cooperation framework agreement” (ECFA) that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is about to sign with China and the severe economic downturn and loss of political autonomy that Taiwan could suffer as a result.
From an economic perspective, any form of integration may trigger a decline in autonomy, especially when the economic scale of the two nations in question differ greatly. This is the exact reason why the UK is unwilling to join the “Eurozone.” Despite this, London remains the world’s biggest financial center.
After they both signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with China, the economies of Hong Kong and Macau seemed to prosper. What actually happened is that they lost their autonomy after they were made to rely on China’s economy. Last July Macau’s gaming stocks fell by 20 percent when Beijing announced tighter visa policies and tens of thousands of Macanese lost their jobs. This is a prime example of the dangers of signing economic agreements with China.
From a political perspective, if we were to lose our economic autonomy, the next step would be the formation of a politically based “one-China market.” In the face of much opposition from within Taiwan, the government has repeatedly reaffirmed that an “ECFA is a purely economic issue that involves neither politics nor sovereignty.”
The government has also emphasized that “we will open up our economy in whatever way is beneficial to us and not open up those parts that will be unbeneficial to us.” But academic theories and mounting evidence show that an ECFA is more than a purely economic issue it has deep political connotations.
Politics will always be a factor when a country establishes closer economic ties with another nation. For example, the first free trade agreement the US ever signed was signed with Israel, a country that has contributed little to the US economy. This shows that the US signed this agreement for political, not economic reasons.
Research gained from computable general equilibrium models shows China’s industries and overall exports will be negatively affected after signing an ECFA with Taiwan, so why is China still willing to do so? Obviously, China’s real goal is to use economics and trade to expedite unification.
I am not against Taiwan carrying out economic integration with other countries or areas. However, we need to make sure that things are equal and fair between both parties of any agreement. Taiwan’s biggest problem now is that it is overly reliant on China and it is simply too risky to put all our eggs in one basket. As soon as an ECFA is signed, more of Taiwan’s industries will move to China, where costs are lower. Once we become reliant on China, Beijng will be able to simply pull the plug on our economy to “punish” us if they hear any “rhetoric” from Taiwan that upsets them.
We cannot rely on China, which is a country with lower wage levels than us, to help develop our economy in the long-term. If we do rely on China and develop even closer relations with it, wages in Taiwan will drop and unemployment will rise rapidly. We will become increasingly entwined in Chinese politics. Once this happens, what will we have left to pass on to future generations?
Wu Rong-i is a board member at Taiwan Thinktank and a former vice premier.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND DREW CAMERON
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS