China’s desire to annex Taiwan is an inarguable fact and Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who participated in the Sunflower movement in 2014, must be fully aware of this, too.
However, whenever people express opposition to Beijing’s “united front” work, Ko often challenges them by saying things like: “Why don’t you call to abolish the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement [ECFA] signed between Taiwan and China in 2010?”
By saying that, the mayor is essentially helping China to emotionally blackmail Taiwan.
I would like to ask him: Most countries around the world have signed economic cooperation agreements with each other, but among the democratic nations, do they “use business to pressure politics” as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does?
Take the annual Taipei-Shanghai twin-city forum for example. According to media reports, despite a Taipei City Council proviso to freeze the budget for the forum if CCP warplanes and warships continued to disturb Taiwan, Ko still held the event as usual in the face of the Chinese military threat.
During an interview not long ago, former minister of health and welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中), the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Taipei mayoral candidate, challenged Ko for “having tea with a hoodlum who wanders around in front of his home.”
Ko responded by saying that, by Chen’s logic, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should perhaps take the initiative to abolish the ECFA and to demand that all Taiwanese businesspeople in China move back to Taiwan, or she might be suspected of “funding the communists.”
Using business to pressure politics has always been part of the CCP’s “united front” effort. The proposed cross-strait service trade agreement that would have allowed the Chinese service industry to operate in Taiwan under the ECFA led to the Sunflower movement, which not only changed Taiwan’s history, but also blocked collusion between the CCP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
However, before the movement, many Taiwanese businesses were encouraged by the KMT to “go west” to China. They fell into the trap set by then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who proposed “no unification, no independence, no war” on the surface, but did not completely exclude unification. To ask those opposing Chinese aggression to abolish the ECFA is simply a “misplacement of responsibility,” disregarding the rights of Taiwanese businesspeople in China.
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have relocated supply chains from China one after another. Taiwanese businesspeople must have sensed this trend by now. Meanwhile, the government has offered incentives to encourage Taiwanese businesspeople to return home.
Did Ko not watch the news? Obviously, his response was designed to shift the focus away from him. What people questioned was why he held the forum in the face of the CCP’s military threat.
Linking challenges to abolishment of the ECFA is to give an irrelevant answer to the question.
Due to China’s economic downturn and high unemployment, countless Chinese rely on Taiwanese factories to make a living, and the argument that “China needs Taiwan” is not groundless.
It is recommended that supporters of the pan-blue and white camps search for a Chinese news report — “Never, ever let [Taiwanese tycoon] Terry Gou (郭台銘) run away, because the significance of Taiwan is beyond your imagination” (絕對，不能讓郭台銘跑了！台灣的重要你無法想像).
Ko should stop helping the CCP emotionally blackmail Taiwan by threatening to abolish the ECFA.
Pan Kuan was a participant in the Sunflower movement.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS