The US, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations earlier this month reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), after about seven years of negotiations.
The agreement, which is still subject to lawmakers’ approval in individual nations before it can take effect, is to cover about 40 percent of the global economy and aims to eliminate more than 18,000 tariffs.
Taiwan is not part of the nascent 12-member trade bloc and this exclusion has raised concerns over the long-term impact on the nation’s international trade.
While South Korea is also excluded from the TPP, it has signed several bilateral free-trade agreements with TPP members to cushion a potential impact from its exclusion. Sadly, Taiwan lags far behind South Korea in this regard.
Both China and India last week appeared to speed up talks over the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) — a 16-nation Asian equivalent to the TPP — for fear of losing ground to the US-backed multilateral trade bloc.
Unfortunately, Taiwan is not a member of the RCEP either, which has raised further concerns that the nation’s export-reliant economy could be marginalized as other nations in the region push for trade liberalization.
If Taiwan were able to join one of the two trade blocks, the impact on its trade would be mitigated; while a dual membership in both would offer a higher level of security. The government has said that it would like to join the TPP in its second stage of expansion and has prioritized joining the TPP over the RCEP, because China plays a less important role in the trans-Pacific bloc.
In terms of negative impacts on foreign demand, exclusion from the TPP would lead to a diversion of trade and foreign direct investment from Taiwan. Even so, do Taiwanese really understand what joining the TPP would mean, be it the positive or negative implications? Is Taiwan ready to participate in comprehensive, high-standard trade agreements such as the TPP?
In addition to eliminating 18,000 tariffs, the TPP also aims to set up a legal framework for the protection of intellectual property rights, enforce standards for labor regulation and environmental law, seek a common set of origin rules and create an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that would allow companies to sue governments, among other issues.
The TPP would help boost Taiwan’s exports and expand domestic companies’ overseas activities. However, it would also mean the opening up of domestic markets and services, such as government procurement processes, the industrial sector, agricultural products and services, and financial services. This would have a negative impact on industries in relatively disadvantageous positions in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors.
Hence, if the government decides that TPP would bring more benefits than harm in the long term, it would signify the arrival of major structural economic changes and legal revisions. Moreover, the government must carry out preparatory work to ease public concerns over what many see as a lack of transparency and public dialogue after the controversial cross-strait service trade agreement was inked with China, which led to the Sunflower movement in March last year.
Regardless of who wins the January’s presidential election, the government must not keep the public, or lawmakers, in the dark about TPP negotiations. Rather, policymakers must work hard to educate the public on the urgency of participation in the TPP and about what the government can do to help those in disadvantageous positions.
Being prepared would have a major effect on the outcome of Taiwan’s TPP bid, which is key to the nation’s economic prosperity and security in the long term.
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