The cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which was signed by then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and came into effect in 2010, reached its deadline for notification of termination on June 29.
At the time, Beijing did not notify the government that it wanted to terminate the agreement.
The formal expiration is tomorrow and Beijing is unlikely to end it before then either.
There is a simple reason that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has placed strict limits on Chinese tourists and students traveling to Taiwan while not terminating the ECFA: The agreement is a weapon in Beijing’s armory to impoverish Taiwan.
It should be viewed in conjunction with Beijing’s “31 measures” and “26 new measures,” which are aimed at enticing Taiwanese professionals, businesses and students to move to China, hollowing out Taiwan’s talent pool.
The harm that the ECFA and these “measures” cause to Taiwan’s society and economy far outweigh any benefits, so of course it is not in Beijing’s interest to end any of them.
Pan-blue media and politicians know that the ECFA is about harmonizing Taiwan’s economy with China’s, and that it lies at the core of the CCP’s and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) conception of cross-strait economics.
The agreement is inextricably linked to the politics of “eventual unification.”
During campaigning for the 2018 nine-in-one local elections, the pan-blue camp pulled off a political masterstroke in Kaohsiung by linking the statement “Kaohsiung is old and poor” with cross-strait economics and trade, distilling the connection into the slogan: “Get the goods out and tourists in so Kaohsiung can make a fortune.”
The campaign led to a surge in support for the party’s candidate, Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who won in a landslide.
Were it not for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) impatience and eagerness for a quick victory, which led him to prematurely unveil his “one country, two systems” plan for Taiwan, the outcome of this year’s presidential election might well have been different.
The appeal of a continued push for the ECFA is closely connected to the “Han wave.” Han’s supporters argue that the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) continued “provocations” of China have made Taiwanese farmers and other members of the public into scapegoats.
His supporters say that the government has given no thought to the basic rights of ordinary citizens.
Proponents of the ECFA have even placed large advertisements in newspapers and magazines, claiming that during the decade of trade under the agreement, the nation has benefited from a “bumper harvest” of NT$200 billion (US$6.78 billion) from export taxes.
However, the advertisements fail to tell the whole story.
As a result of the ECFA, Taiwanese direct investment in China in the past decade totals NT$850 billion, in addition to a large talent outflow.
Beijing’s strategy to use the deal to impoverish Taiwan has been a roaring success. As a result, Taiwan’s economic growth has declined every year, growing by just 1.47 percent in 2015.
When opponents of the agreement talk of “selling out Taiwan,” is it “non-patriotic” — as ECFA opponents have been branded — to question exchanging a mere NT$200 billion in tax-free benefits NT$850 billion of the blood, toil and sweat of the nation’s workforce?
It is discouraging that the government — particularly officials in charge of economic policy — always adopt a nebulous position of tacit recognition toward pan-blue camp propaganda.
For instance, government officials have said that the agreement only affects 5 percent of income derived from foreign trade and exports.
When KMT politicians say that the DPP, after initially calling the ECFA a “sugar-coated poison pill,” has changed its mind and wants it to remain in place, the DPP does nothing to rebut the claim.
Thus, many Taiwanese are under the false impression that the ECFA has been beneficial to Taiwan and that the government should restore exchanges with China.
The pan-blue camp has successfully set the agenda, instilling in the public the notion that criticism of the ECFA is unwarranted and that the criticism is harming the pan-green camp’s economic policy.
According to media reports, 135 members of the KMT, including Taichung City Councilor Joyce Jan (冉齡軒), have signed a petition to propose an “ECFA consensus” bill in the legislature to replace the so-called “1992 consensus” as a new framework for “substantive, reciprocal, official and peaceful” cross-strait relations.
It is clear that the “Han wave” has become cheerleaders for the ECFA.
The government can counter the KMT’s propaganda campaign with one simple sentence: “The ECFA ‘bumper harvest’ might benefit some companies, but for the vast majority of Taiwanese, it is still a sugar-coated poison pill.”
The DPP must be careful: If the government does nothing and continues to let the issue slide, once the majority of Taiwanese are duped into believing that the ECFA is a good thing for the nation, the pendulum might swing the other way and the “Han wave” might have a resurgence.
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser to the president and a former advisory member of the National Security Council.
Translated by Edward Jones
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS