As Taiwan prepares for the elections in November, many events and issues are being politicized and turned into campaign issues. As this happens, rationality often ceases to prevail; instead, untruths and hypocrisy rule.
There are some poignant examples of this:
First is that the cross-strait service trade agreement with China and the free economic pilot zones plan are being challenged as harmful to Taiwanese businesses and even Taiwan itself. Yet it is obvious — and some opponents of these policies admit this — they would hurt some businesses, but help others, as most such agreements do, and they would also facilitate trade, which is good for the nation.
Their most obvious defect, it is charged, but which makes little sense, is that they are not transparent, and therefore harmful to Taiwan’s democracy — even though both policies have been extensively dissected, vetted, debated and criticized. They are certainly more transparent than most economic or commercial agreements and proposals negotiated elsewhere.
However, what seems most irrational about the criticisms is that Taiwan is making serious efforts to join negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, but that little is being said about that trade pact not being transparent.
The TPP’s provisions are not even known to members of the US Congress. WikiLeaks’ disclosure of some of its articles and suspicions resulting from its secrecy have caused labor and environmental groups in the US stage street protests. There are also charges it is a corrupt agreement, as it will help the music and movie businesses (Hollywood), as well as drug companies in the US — both major contributors to US President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
Moreover, the TPP is not a free-trade agreement, as it is touted. It is a managed trade agreement in large measure aimed at Beijing and that is part of Washington’s “pivot to Asia” policy launched by the Obama administration to check China’s rise.
The deal was supposed to be finalized in December last year, but due to a lack of consensus among participants, had to be delayed. Then it was to be concluded in April, when Obama visited Asia, but that did not happen. Japan expressed misgivings over the pact’s provisions on agriculture (which would possibly be a problem for Taiwan too). Meanwhile, Republicans in the US, who normally support free-trade agreements, were distrustful of the Obama administration and their support is questionable.
The second example is the recent visit China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) made to Taiwan — technically, the first such official visit as previous ones were made by non-government personnel. His presence attracted distracters.
Zhang’s visit was not unannounced; Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) proposed the trip several months earlier. Zhang’s agenda was also transparent and his visit little more than a friendly tour. Zhang did almost nothing while in Taiwan and said little that was important or controversial, and certainly nothing offensive. He presented a friendly, cheerful and optimistic mien. However, critics gathered to protest his presence.
They suggested-cum-demanded that he agree with Greater Tainan Mayor William Lai’s (賴清德) statement in China just days earlier that the future of Taiwan should be decided by the 23 million residents of Taiwan (not including Chinese elsewhere, as an official in China had suggested before). Zhang did not comply and was harangued as a result.
Yet Lai’s statement was hardly realistic. Taiwan is small and that means that it will not decide its future. Anyone who has studied history or international relations knows this. Europe’s small countries did not decide their futures, bigger countries did. That is true elsewhere in the world.
Taiwan’s future will be decided by the US and China; that may be hard to accept, but it is reality.
Nor is this situation something new or which is never talked about. Taiwan’s academics, pundits and media have frequently discussed the consequence of the US withdrawing its protective cover over the nation. It is calculated that the country would survive for a few hours or perhaps a few days, but not longer.
The US has stated its position regarding Taiwan’s future: that it will be decided by Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Washington-Taipei relations deteriorated badly during former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration because the US perceived that he was seeking to change the “status quo” unilaterally.
The third examples is that many politicians in Taiwan and their minions — lacking a sense of reality — rue Taiwan’s having become economically dependent on China, which means Taiwan’s sovereignty is challenged. Taiwan has become reliant on China; its exports across the strait now exceed 40 percent of its total, but this has been years in the making; it is not something hatched by the present administration.
Moreover, the alternative is cutting or reducing exports to China and adopting policies of protectionism and isolationism, which would be devastating to the nation’s growth and its prosperity. One cannot have it both ways: That is realism.
There are some facts to be considered that relate to the argument that Taiwanese sovereignty is at peril.
First, a few decades ago, nearly half of the nation’s exports went to the US and it did not suffer.
Second, other countries in Asia have also become dependent on China, which is now the foremost trading partner of nearly every East Asian country. They have not lost their sovereignty.
Third, it is well-known that global trade agreements have not been very successful in recent years, as regional agreements have been. The Chinese juggernaut means that Beijing controls regional trade arrangements in Asia and Taiwan, absent good commercial relations with China, is excluded to its detriment. It is pointless to wish that this were not true.
Fourth, there is the reality that while China wants Taiwan to rejoin the fatherland, it is not in a big hurry. Its biggest concern is continued economic growth and the current cross-strait situation from that perspective is quite acceptable; changing it would be harmful.
From another angle, looking at the “Taiwan issue” from Beijing’s viewpoint, especially thinking of what is unacceptable, namely Taiwan declaring formal or legal independence, or Japan gaining more influence over Taiwan, which is unlikely, Chinese leaders need not fret. Therefore Beijing can be patient and wait, and hope, for Taiwan to realize that getting closer to China might be a good idea.
Finally, protesting China’s encroachment on Taiwan’s sovereignty may be counterproductive. It plays into the hands of the Chinese military, which takes a much more aggressive stance toward Taiwan. In the worst situation, it could push civilian leaders in China to adopt a military solution to the issue.
Taiwan’s democracy is doing well, especially when seen in the context of that political system failing in many parts of the world. Democracy is in retreat in the developing world and is losing public support in the US, Europe and Japan. Its being alive and well in Taiwan makes the nation special, but it requires enlightened voters who face reality and distinguish between truth and political rhetoric.
John Copper is a professor (emeritus) of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS