¡@
ECFA politics rear their ugly head
Tuesday, May 25, 2010, Page 8
The proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) that President Ma
Ying-jeou¡¦s (°¨^¤E) administration hopes to sign with China sometime next month
is, despite what Ma wants the public to believe, a very political affair.
Any doubt that this is not the case was dispelled on Sunday after the Liberty
Times (the Taipei Times¡¦ sister paper) reported that customs authorities in
Shenzhen City¡¦s Yantian Port, one of the largest container ports in the world,
said they would strictly enforce ¡§country of origin¡¨ rules, meaning products
made in Taiwan would have to be labeled ¡§made in Taiwan, China¡¨ or be barred
entry into the Chinese market.
Vice Minister of Economic Affairs Lin Sheng-chung (ªL¸t©¾) said that Taiwan would
not accept this demand, as it went against the spirit of the WHO, of which
Taiwan and the People¡¦s Republic of China are separate members.
While it appears that the Chinese Council for the Promotion of International
Trade first issued the directive that products from Taiwan be labeled either
¡§Taiwan, China¡¨ or ¡§Taipei, China¡¨ back in 2005, the demand was not taken
seriously by Chinese customs officials ¡X until a few months ago. The Liberty
Times reported that in recent months several regions in China have been
screening the labeling of Taiwanese products and rejected those marked ¡§Made in
Taiwan.¡¨
If this decision was made purely out of economic incentives (as Ma would argue)
and was simply an instance of protectionism, what the labeling says would be
irrelevant and all goods originating from Taiwan would be blocked. That only
goods bearing a Made in Taiwan label are denied entry is a clear indication that
the politics of nationalism are influencing trade decisions.
Though the timing represents poor planning on Beijing¡¦s part, it is in line with
the open manner in which it has expressed the political undertones of the trade
pact. In other words, while Ma has attempted to depoliticize an ECFA, Beijing
has not made a secret of the fact that it regards it as a political instrument.
The labeling crisis is yet another example of China¡¦s guerrilla-warfare
negotiating style. It overshoots, seems to undercut its staunch ally in Taipei,
only to then step back and, as a ¡§goodwill¡¨ gesture, make further ¡§compromises,¡¨
which in this case will likely be a relaxation on labeling policies regarding
products made in Taiwan.
Such a move is all the more likely if the labeling issue turns into a political
storm that threatens the viability of an ECFA, or even Ma¡¦s chances of being
re-elected in 2012. What it does show, however, is that even if the Council for
the Promotion of International Trade yields a little, we can expect the policy
to re-emerge after 2012, especially once an ECFA has further tied Taiwan¡¦s
export-based economy to that of China.
Once hyper-dependence is created and institutionalized ¡X and this is the very
object of an ECFA, even if the rules of the game are changed ¡X Taiwanese firms
and ministry officials will no longer be in a position to protest and will have
to accept the labeling Taiwanese products in a way that denigrates the country¡¦s
sovereignty. Furthermore, accepting such an unacceptable arrangement would deal
a double blow to Taiwan if ¡§Made in Taiwan, China¡¨ goods were intended for
re-export, as it would add to Beijing¡¦s relentless campaign to portray Taiwan as
part of China, one shipment at a time.
So much for Ma¡¦s apolitical trade pact.
¡@
|