|
ECFA could marginalize Taiwan
By Nathan Novak 李漢聲
Sunday, Jul 18, 2010, Page 8
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has continually
used the argument that without the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA),
Taiwan would become further marginalized in the Chinese economy and in the
international community. This argument is wrongheaded.
For some time now, it has been quite obvious that in China, economics is
politics and politics is economics. This can be said for any country. Throughout
modern history, economic performance has often been a key determining factor in
a nation’s regional and international influence. Moreover, in terms of regime
survival and political legitimacy, “It’s the economy, stupid,” was an important
point in political discussions even before it became a popular phrase in the
1992 US presidential campaign.
And it is no coincidence that the side that used that phrase in 1992 won the
presidential election.
Taken in a Chinese context, “It’s the economy, stupid,” has been one of the most
important factors not only in China’s rise over the past three decades, but also
in the Chinese Communist Party’s continuing hold on power. By lifting hundreds
of millions out of poverty, giving citizens higher standards of living and
offering hope for an even brighter and more prosperous economic future, the
Communist Party has hitched their regime’s — and the entire nation’s — survival
to economic growth and might.
Taiwan has also experienced a long period of economic growth, although its own
period of growth began earlier than China’s, and for anyone who would argue that
Taiwan’s economic situation is not politicized, “It’s the economy, stupid,” was
a big factor in Ma’s free-falling popularity rating at the end of 2008 and
through last year.
Moreover, anyone arguing that Ma’s falling popularity was merely the result of a
political attack by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to take advantage of
poor economic performance, I remind you of the political trouble former
president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) found himself in during the early years of his
tenure when Taiwan faced an economic downturn.
When the Ma administration says the ECFA is purely economic and not political,
what it’s really saying is that nothing political is explicitly mentioned in the
document. However, given what we already know about the interplay of politics
and economics, and given what we know about the nature of every regime, not just
the Chinese regime, it is obvious that politics is implied in this economic
document.
Taking the fact that politics and economics are intimately connected, how can
Ma’s administration claim that Taiwan will be marginalized in the Chinese
market? Is it possible that Beijing would allow Taiwan to slip out of the
Chinese market and thus risk completely losing Taiwan politically?
If, as the president himself has admitted, Beijing is using the ECFA for
political purposes, and if, as those studying cross-strait relations and Chinese
politics think, China is using its economic clout to unify Taiwan and China
politically, then how can anyone in his or her right mind be concerned about
Taiwan losing its edge in the Chinese market? Does anyone honestly believe that
China would rather have a closer relationship with ASEAN at the cost of
completely losing Taiwan?
To the contrary, it is Taiwan’s remaining political — and to some extent
economic — independence from China that keeps Taiwan central in East Asian, as
well as global, security and economic discussions. The combination of this
centrality and the constant threat to Taiwan’s security, sovereignty and
democratic governance, makes Taiwan a focal point in any study of Northeast
and/or Southeast Asia.
Taiwan’s integration with China, be it economic or political — is there really
any difference — would instead lead to the marginalization of Taiwan. If Taiwan
were to become another Hunan, Shandong or Heilongjiang Province, — or even
another Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region — then Taiwan would become a locality
that would be studied and treated internationally much like Michigan in the US,
Komi in the Russian Federation or Manitoba in Canada.
Taiwan would no longer be of any real or practical concern to any other
international player. Additionally, how many nations or economies can you name
that have free-trade agreements specifically with Michigan, Komi, Manitoba, or
Inner Mongolia, for that matter?
Talk about marginalization.
Nathan Novak is a US citizen residing in Taiwan and is a
writer, researcher and student of China and the Asia-Pacific region,
specializing in cross-strait relations and Chinese and Taiwanese politics and
foreign policies.
|
