On Thursday last week US President Donald Trump announced that the US would pull out of the Paris climate agreement. The decision has sparked ire in the international community and drawn criticism from many Americans.
Before the announcement, many leading US companies — including Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Google and Tesla — had urged the Trump administration to stay in the agreement.
Why did Trump insist on quitting the Paris agreement, despite opposition from major US corporations whose support he needs to bring manufacturing back to the US? There must be reasons to make him believe upsetting them is worth it.
In his speech announcing the withdrawal, Trump said that the agreement, although beneficial to many countries, is not good for the US and its workers.
He said the accord allows China increased carbon emissions in the next 13 years — that is, by 2030, China has to reduce its carbon emissions to 60 to 65 percent of its 2005 emissions, but because its economy is growing rapidly, it can in fact increase its emissions — but requires the US to significantly reduce its carbon emissions, although it provides 30 percent of the agreement’s funding.
Despite China’s attempts to assume global leadership, when it comes to making international agreements, it always demands to be treated as a developing country to obtain better terms.
For example, China joined the WTO in 2000 as a developing country and therefore avoided all the international obligations of developed economies. It has taken the same approach to issues such as trade liberalization and globalization.
As an authoritarian country with a state capitalist economy, China has managed to enjoy all the benefits of globalization while continuing to practice blatant protectionism.
In the Paris agreement, China has also tried to pass the main responsibility of reducing carbon emissions to the US by claiming that its carbon emissions per capita are far below those of other developing countries, despite having the highest carbon emissions in the world.
The US’ decision to back out of the Paris agreement has implications for Taiwan.
First, it is clear that Trump views China as the US’ primary economic and military competitor and threat, and he is clearly unhappy about China benefiting from US concessions in the Paris agreement.
Second, Trump, who deeply believes in his own campaign slogan to “make America great again,” will place even more emphasis on Taiwan’s importance to US national security. In addition, only a strong US will be able to protect Taiwan.
Third, if Taiwan can improve its economic ties with the US, the Trump administration will also place more emphasis on the nation’s economic stability.
Fourth, Taiwan also has a serious problem with its high carbon emissions. The US’ decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement will lighten the pressure on Taiwan to reduce its carbon emissions, which will be helpful to the nation’s plan to phase out nuclear power by 2025.
Some have said that the US’ decision provides an opportunity for China to become the new leader in the fight against climate change. To that, the White House simply responded: “Fine.”
The aim of this article is not to analyze whether Trump made the right decision to quit the agreement — that will be left to other experts to investigate and discuss — but at the very least, the decision is not necessarily bad news for Taiwan.
In fact, the news should make the government feel relieved as it continues to fight for international rights and sovereignty.
Huang Tien-lin is former president and chairman of First Commercial Bank and a Presidential Office adviser.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS