Showing posts with label FTA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FTA. Show all posts

Monday, July 15, 2013

Daily Links, Monday, July 13, 2013

In the aftermath of typhoon Soulik, the roads are covered with mud and debris. This is Miaoli 55, Pinglin Road, out of Jhuolan in Miaoli, one of the area's most enjoyable roads. Highly recommended.

Some Daily Links for you to enjoy.... links have become much harder since Google terminated Reader.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Richard Bush catches up

On cycling vacation in Borneo with my man Michael C. That's him above on his recumbent somewhere between Kota Kinabalu and Papar last week.

My how things change. Last week former AIT head and longtime US gov't Taiwan expert Richard Bush observed (TT):
The returns on cross-strait economic exchanges may be diminishing because the Chinese economic model is changing, former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan Richard Bush said on Wednesday.

“Taiwan was a real beneficiary of export-led growth relying on essentially cheap labor, abuse of the environment and local corruption,” he said.

However, China was moving away from that model, and Taiwanese companies aiming to position themselves in the middle of the global supply chain had better move with it, he said.

At the same time, Chinese companies that would like to displace their Taiwanese partners are coming to prominence, he added.

Under these circumstances, Taiwan’s economic future cannot rest solely on liberalizing the nation’s relationship with China.

Taipei should beware of “putting all of its eggs in that basket,” he said.
Those of us who watch Taiwan's affairs and love this place all had a good laugh, for of course these were the DPP and pro-Taiwan critiques of four years ago that so many of us put forth. It was courageous of Bush to say this; unfortunately it was already out of date four years ago. What was Bush saying two years ago? From a wonderfully titled speech at Brookings:
The first area is economic policy. A big challenge to maintaining Taiwan’s competitiveness is the economic regionalization occurring in East Asia. If Taiwan is kept outside the circle of regionalization and liberalization, its companies will be increasingly marginalized. Concluding ECFA is important because it holds promise for getting Taiwan inside the circle. Otherwise, Taiwan’s growth will decline.

But it is important to understand how ECFA will benefit Taiwan. It is not just because Taiwan exporters will benefit from reduced tariffs. More importantly, it will force a structural readjustment within Taiwan. Uncompetitive, previously protected firms will go out of business. Opportunities will blossom for the most advanced sectors.
It is obvious that the "structural readjustment" (an ideological construct of neoliberal religion with pretty much the same function in economics as penance has in Catholicism, basically self-administered punishment for being a bad bad economy) Bush refers to has not occurred. Such moves into advanced sectors as are taking place began long before ECFA. Instead, the adjustment to ECFA has been a government move, under the guise of "bringing Taiwan firms back", to subsidize big makers rather than to let them die while it implements 1960s-era development policies again.

Bush also claimed, as most supporters of the ECFA Cargo Cult did, that ECFA would enable Taiwan to get around the problem of regional trade blocs in Asia by... more deeply connecting itself to China. As I have pointed out countless times, this claim essentially argued that the way to make Taiwan more international was to marginalize it. Naturally FTAs with other nations have not been forthcoming (WSJ from 2011). Hopefully one with Singapore will materialize; it had already been negotiated under the Chen Administration but blocked by Beijing. There is also one with New Zealand coming down the pike. Beijing never really forthrightly stated that it would permit Taiwan to have FTAs (past hilarity), so it will be interesting to see what Beijing does.

In any case, a couple of years have gone by, and the trend is clear: trade with China is declining over time, Taiwan's share of the China market has declined since ECFA, and its trade with ASEAN is rising (example). Of course, this was all predictable based on the experience of other trade blocs with China (example)(and here too). The Legislative Budget Committee report from last year also said that Taiwan has by and large not benefited from ECFA.

One good thing contained in Bush's talk of last week was the identification of China's behavior in the Senakakus as 'worrisome'. Kudos to him for that, at least.
_______________
Daily Links:
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Sunday, October 03, 2010

US and Taiwan Beef No More

Trade talks are resuming between the US and Taiwan, which is excellent news for those of us hoping that Washington will realize the future is out here in Asia. The Taipei Times says:

Taiwan and the US are set to resume negotiations on economic issues under the bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) after a three-year hiatus.

The decision was finalized after a delegation of officials from the Office of the US Trade Representative, the US Department of Commerce and the American Institute in Taiwan’s (AIT) Washington headquarters met with Taiwanese officials in Taipei during a two-day visit on Tuesday and Wednesday.

In a press release issued yesterday morning, the AIT said: “The two sides are working to finalize mutually agreeable dates for the [TIFA] meeting and are targeting late 2010 or early 2011.”

The spat over US beef sales to Taiwan has been shelved so that both sides can work on other issues. At last someone somewhere had an attack of common sense! The beef spat not only soured relations between Taiwan and the US, but also caused the fall of NSC Su Chi. It also led to some re-assessments of Ma among US analysts, I've heard.

A TIFA (Trade and Investment Framework Agreement) is often said to be an important precursor to a free trade agreement (FTA) between the two nations (US-Taiwan FTA site here but I don't know who runs it). At this point, a US-Taiwan FTA seems as unlikely as F-16 sales....
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Friday, August 06, 2010

Xinhua wants One China FTAs


Short and Sweet, from Xinhua:
Singapore should recognize 'one China' in Taiwan accord: Xinhua

Singapore should recognize China's sovereignty over Taiwan even as the Southeast Asian country is preparing to sign an economic agreement, Chinese state news agency Xinhua said yesterday.

"We hope Singapore continues to observe the principle that there's only one China," Xinhua reported, citing the Chinese foreign ministry's spokeswoman Jiang Yu.
The "One China" requirement has long been suspect by intelligent observers as a demand Beijing would place on ECFA and post-ECFA negotiations. What else could they do? Taiwan Today posted a piece on the Singapore-Taiwan FTA that said in part:

The minister pointed out that the two nations will pursue a trade pact that includes agreements on trade, investment, intellectual property rights, electronic commerce and customs cooperation.

Though the trade accord is similar to a free trade agreement, the two sides will not refer to it as such, Shih said, “because not using such a designation actually opens up more possibilities.” He noted that Singapore has entered trade agreements with Japan and India in recent years without calling them FTAs.

It appears to be a clever trick to get around the problem of Beijing not wanting Taiwan to have FTAs...

But I wouldn't want to leave my readers on such a low note. Hence, I'm leaving you with this incredible piece of cutting edge research straight from the Taiwan Lottery, which leaves no stone unturned in its quest to provide you with the winning fate. Since phrenology is an awesomely modern science, it should come as no surprise that Taiwan lottery winners have bigger earlobes.

Taiwan Lottery has analyzed the faces of 1,414 winners of large cash prizes in the lottery, and compiled information on the characteristics of those most likely to win prizes of NT$5 million (US$157,000) or more.

Most big winners are between 40 and 59 years old, male, residents of Taipei County, Sagittarius, born in the Chinese Year of the Goat, with double-fold eyelids, an oval face, thick lips, bushy eyebrows and a high nose. Above all, almost all of the winners have large earlobes.

It's a good thing they didn't waste the taxpayers' money or anything.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Sunday, May 02, 2010

Remarks on Moving Forward with a U.S.-Taiwan Free and Fair Trade Agreement

FAPA sent this around. The US-Taiwan FTA, in various forms, has been on the back, back, back burner for quite some time. It would have been great if the US had offered Taiwan one a while back, it might be good if we got one once Ma forces the ECFA agreement on Taiwan. Perhaps the US might consider formalizing an FTA offer contingent upon ECFA. It would be a good test of Chinese intentions. On to the remarks, which are quite strong. Andrews made some good ones....

+++++++++++++++++

Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Remarks on “Moving Forward with a U.S.-Taiwan Free and Fair Trade Agreement”
Rayburn HOB Room B354
Wednesday, April 28, 2010, at 12:00 noon

Members of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, Friends of Taiwan, Supporters of Fair and Free Trade, Members of the Taiwanese American Community:

While American trade interests in Asia stagnate, the Chinese dragon is extending its claws ever further out into the Pacific.

The China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement went into effect at the beginning of the year.

While the White House and Democratic Leadership in Congress allow the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement to languish without formal Congressional action, Beijing sings its siren song to seduce Seoul and Tokyo into joining a China-centered trade agreement.

In June, the perhaps inaccurately named Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and Mainland China is set to be signed, despite concerns over growing Chinese economic influence on the island.

Like the Trojan horse which allowed the Greek invaders to penetrate the inner walls of Troy, the ECFA may prove to be one gift horse that the people of Taiwan would rather not look in the mouth.

The ECFA may well prove to be a political tool that masquerades as a trade instrument to achieve China's ultimate goal of absorbing Taiwan.

Strategic, political and cultural influences are all closely tied to economics.

Washington cannot cede supremacy in economic influence over the Pacific to Beijing.

A U.S.-Taiwan FTA will boost U.S. exports to Taiwan, expand the U.S. market share in Asia, and strengthen bilateral ties.

Taiwan, currently the 10th largest trading partner of the U.S. and 6th largest destination of U.S. agriculture products, is a desirable market for U.S. goods and services.

Studies by the U.S. International Trade Commission show that U.S. exports to Taiwan would grow at a rate of approximately 16% per year if a US-Taiwan FTA were enacted.

Taiwan, a democracy that supports a free market, the rule of law and human rights, provides a transparent, free and stable environment for U.S. investment and business opportunities in Asia.

It is a sad fact that most countries refrain from an FTA with Taiwan out of fear of China's reprisals.

The Taiwanese workforce and economy are increasingly left out and negatively impacted due to this isolation.

A U.S.-Taiwan FTA, however, will help Taiwan break out of its international isolation.

A U.S.-Taiwan FTA can also help halt China's growing economic and political leverage over Taiwan and give Taiwan more confidence in negotiations with China.

Now is the time for the Administration to begin moving forward in pursuing at FTA with our good friend, Taiwan.

Thank you.

Transcript of Congressman Robert Andrews' remarks (D-NJ)

April 28, 2010

Coen, thank you very much for your friendship and mentorship over the years. I so much enjoy our discussions of the issues and many wonderful people that I have had a chance to meet around our great country as a result of this association and our association.

Issues don't make sense without context. And I think the imperative for those of us who care about the great friendship between Taiwan and the United States is to educate Americans about the context of that relationship.

The greatest asset of the United States is not our mighty military although it is mighty indeed. Thank goodness.

It is not our economy. It's a bit ragged these days but it still stands as the most entrepreneurial and powerful economy in the world.

The greatest asset of the United States is our value system, and the esteem with which it is held around the world.

There is no more graphic image, no more poignant image of that point than the paper mache statue of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square twenty years ago. This is not an image that has been limited to those fighting for freedom in Asia, and the same is true in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe and around the globe.

The context of the United States is that people around the world believe that we stand for something that is universal and desirable. The right to speak one's mind, the right to worship or not worship as one sees fit, the right to make decisions within your family, your personal affairs as you see fit, democratic rights under government, civil liberty, freedom and human rights. This is what defines us as a people. And each of those characteristics is characteristic of Taiwan.

Imperfectly in some instances, as we are imperfect but these are the core values of the people of Taiwan, and it is because the people of Taiwan hold these values that they are imperiled.

They are imperiled by an aggressive and bellicose neighbor which periodically rattles its sabers literally and figuratively towards their system; whether it's the Anti-Secession Law a few years ago or military operations a few months ago.

When the People's Republic of China rattles its sabers against Taiwan, it's not simply testing Taiwan, it's testing the United States of America! It is testing whether we truly adhere to the values we profess.

I know people in this room, including my friend and colleague from New Jersey Congressman Scott Garrett, believe strongly and passionately in the independence and the freedom of the people of Taiwan.

But even if one puts aside that very crucial value, there is another value at stake – and that is the American value and the American perception of whether we truly mean what we say and practice what we preach.

THAT is what is being tested when the rest of the world looks at the relationship between the United States and Taiwan.

I think there are three steps the United States should take to validate the point that we revere and respect human rights and freedom even when it's inconvenient, even when it's risky, even when it's not the easiest course.

And those three steps involve trade, involve our reactions to the political and economic negotiations between Taiwan and the PRC, and for the way we treat Taiwan in the global framework.

First, with respect to trade, I think for both economic and strategic reasons, the time has arrived for a Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Taiwan.

I'll be introducing a resolution in the weeks ahead that will call upon the administration to actively pursue such an agreement and present it in the U.S. Congress under the Fast Track type of rule.

The economic value is obvious. Even those of us who have frankly opposed such agreements with other countries, and I have, have opposed such agreement on grounds that we should not trade down, we should not reduce our environmental, or legal or labor standards down to another level.

That argument, which is a hotly debated argument in these halls, is relevant to the relationship between the United States and Taiwan.

Taiwan has the 20th largest economy in the world, the per capita GDP is approaching or near $30,000 per person per year, the economy of Taiwan is vibrant, modern, and advanced, and in every respect, there will be true mutual benefit for such a relationship.

But the strategic advantage is even more self-evident, in my view. It is an affirmation of an important sense that the United States regards the people of Taiwan, functionally as a free, sovereign and independent people. You don't make free trade agreements with someone else's state or territory. You make free trade agreements with sovereign people. That is a hugely important symbol – which leads to my second point.

The so–called "Economic Framework" that's being discussed between the PRC and Taiwan, in my view, is more of a "Cage" than a "Framework."

I think it reflects a negotiation from the point of a disadvantage.

Now I believe any duly elected government has the autonomy to negotiate any agreement it sees fit for its people, but that presupposes a negotiation that is free of coercion and is conducted in a truly bilateral, equivalent context. And that is most assuredly not the case.

Because, I think, of the absence of United States support for Taiwan, the PRC is really reading the situation as an invitation to engage in a more coercive discussion with Taiwan than a bilateral free one.

It would be ironic if you link these two points. If there was a so-called "Trade Agreement" signed between Taiwan and the PRC before there was a free trade agreement signed between the United States and Taiwan.

I think these issues are quite related. I think that active pursuit of a free trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan would set a better context for whatever negotiation that is going to proceed between Taiwan and the PRC. It would be an affirmation of our view that Taiwan is sovereign and independent, which leads to my final view.

Taiwan is functioning as a sovereign, independent state. There's no question about that. The rest of the world uses that way in economic terms, legal terms. And I think the time has come to end that fiction that politically and in terms of international law that that is not the case.

It is a provocative position. There is no question about that. But I think rather than simply asserting the obvious point that the World Health Organization should include the voice of the people of Taiwan, asserting the point that there should be military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan, asserting another point of this nature, I think that our policy should move in a bolder and more truthful direction of acknowledging Taiwan as sovereign and independent.

I know that is provocative. I know that's provocative. It's meant to be. Because we are confronted here with a longer struggle, between a government based in Beijing that I hope will evolve into a peaceful trading partner of the United States and a true asset to the world economy.

I hope that this is an evolution that will take place in the PRC. But for us to ASSUME that there would be an evolution would be a dramatic mistake. If the economy of the PRC grows over the next twenty years at the rate which it has grown the last twenty years; and the government of the PRC devotes to military expenditures the same share of GDP it presently devotes, the truthful share it devotes, not the share it reports, then in 20 years, the Chinese military structure will be twice the size as that of the U.S. Plane for plane, ship for ship, missile for missile.

And there will be five times as many citizens of age to bear arms in China than as there are in the United States. This is not the future that I aspire to, not the one that I predict, but it's the one that I think we have to prepare for. And I think the best preparation is not to compromise or coward on matters of principle, it is to assert matters of principle.

And the issues regarding Taiwan are matters of principle, not simply for the security and freedom of the people of that country but for the advocacy of promises made by the people of our country.

Yes, this is provocative. But I believe we should provoke a discussion, a non-violent discussion, but provoke the discussion of differences NOW, rather than wait for the day when the person with whom we are going to have this discussion is growing stronger and powerful and perhaps irreversibly bellicose in its relationship with the United States.

The great moments of our history have been the ones when we advocated with principle, even when it was risky or inconvenient. And I think this is one of those moments.

I believe in the pursuit of the free trade agreement, frankly, the creation of a new diplomatic concept for any negotiation between Taiwan and the PRC, and actions which assert our functional reality that Taiwan is a free and independent, sovereign state or the right course of Taiwan, frankly more importantly, the right course for the United States of America.

Thank you.

* * * *

QUESTION (part of it inaudible): How practical and credible is it to conclude a free trade agreement between Taiwan and the U.S. when you cannot get TIFA talks to move forward? And the free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea have been languishing in this Congress for two years now.

Andrews: I think it is very practical and credible for these reasons. The other trade agreements that you mentioned do fall into the normal dichotomy of views on these which I am a part of, that look at the environmental standards, labor standards, and relative size of GDP. And for those of us who believe that trading down is a mistake. Those reasons are quite salient.

They are irrelevant in the case of Taiwan. For those like myself who would like an opportunity to assert my understanding of the principles of free trade and value of them, I think it is a perfect opportunity. Putting aside the strategic issue of Taiwan, for those of us who say "Yes, we should have free trade with countries that have equivalent economies, environmental and legal standards, this is the case, this is the one we ought to do. So I think it has practical values in that respect."

Question (part of it inaudible): What about the beef problems?

Andrews: I think those are "Means" problems, not "End" problems. They are important but I think they are issues of means, rather than ends.

Question: So far we haven't seen much negotiation done by the U.S. government. There seems to be reluctance from the administration to go forward.

Andrews: I think there is some reluctance on this question because they believe this is indelicate with respect to relations with the PRC. I think we should be indelicate; we should be obstreperous, or volatile in our behavior. But I think we should be indelicate. I think the policy of downgrading human rights concerns is a mistake. I don't think they should be the only object of our foreign policy but I think that, when we overlook those concerns because what we believe is economic convenience or necessity, I think, that is a mistake. The purpose of my resolution is to try to get Congress, as many Members of Congress as we can on record to assert the economic and strategic and moral value of asserting this agreement.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Saturday, April 03, 2010

Why is Ma so Unpopular: Take II

Asia Sentinel, which often has wonderful stuff, became the latest news organization to grapple with the uncomfortable fact of Ma's lack of popularity with a piece that says that Ma has hit a rough patch -- yeah, basically since he entered office. AS begins:
Over the nearly two years since Ma Ying-jeou was sworn in as Taiwan's president, his popularity has seesawed from a high of 58 percent when he was elected to a low of around 20 percent when his government was perceived as arrogant and incompetent in the wake of Typhoon Morakot, then recovered strongly on the government's performance after the global financial crisis. Now it has plummeted again, with just 23.8 percent of the electorate approving of his performance.
I got curious to see what "strong recovery" occurred after the government's poor performance on Morakot due to the response to the financial crisis (which was as lame as the response to Morakot, it just unfolded over a longer period of time), so I looked up the Global Views poll, which helpfully has the numbers on Ma since June of 2008. Here's their track:


The dark blue line at the top is the dissatisfaction/disapproval rate, the aqua line at the bottom is the satisfaction/approval rate. Once they elected Ma, the public seemed to wake up rapidly and his approval rates, as the global views poll notes, peaked at around 40 just prior to Morakot in August of 2009. Since then Ma has been unable to break 30. I wonder what poll Asia Sentinel was looking at, because there was no recovery after Morakot in this one.

The Asia Sentinel piece does a much better job than Shelly Rigger's latest piece at identifying the root of the current problem: ECFA.
Ma's popularity now is at risk over the ECFA – the Economic Cooperation and Framework Agreement with China, a preferential trade agreement being discussed in Taipei and one that voters widely believe will sacrifice the island's autonomy to Beijing.
Voters also widely believe it will trash the economy. The AS report doesn't dig deeply enough...
His American education and approach to governing appeared to present a clean break from the country's previous deeply scandal-tainted politics, especially those of his own predecessors in the Kuomintang.
Folks, nobody disputed that Ma had downloaded government funds into his own accounts for personal use. Anyone remember the court's verdict? An excerpt:
According to the indictment, Ma collected NT$4,129,073 from the special funds between December 1998 and July 2006, but the judges upheld Ma's innocence as they said that during his two-terms as Taipei mayor between 1999 and 2006 he had also donated NT$63,078,949 to charity, which is over five times the amount of money from the special fund.
At least one other individual had been convicted and imprisoned for doing what Ma did. But you can be sure that this reality will never see the light of day in the international media. Another fun instance:
And, when in 2008 the world financial crisis hit, Ma Ying-jeou's cabinet reacted quickly and positively. The government issued consumer shopping vouchers, with each eligible Taiwanese receiving NT$3,600 (US$113) to attempt to revive the domestic economy. This went well with the public.
The voucher program (my post) went well with the public? My perception was that the public found it an amusing but pathetic substitute for real economic action, as Jon Adams basically reported. But others may remember differently.

Few in Taiwan would argue that the Ma cabinet reacted quickly and positively to the economic crisis; quite the opposite. That is one reason for Ma's long-term popularity drop-off. As with the Rigger piece, the fact that Ma is widely perceived to be incompetent, and the reasons for it -- with the exception of Morakot -- never truly surfaces in the AS piece.

There's an interesting thesis on the beef issue. AS argues that Ma sacrificed his popularity to show China a thing or two:
Since Ma's government must have been aware of what happened in Korea, the decision to risk his standing with the Taiwanese public could have been a political maneuver: in times of ongoing ECFA negotiations the demonstrations gave Beijing the signal that the Taiwanese are still likely to hit the streets if there are developments they don't approve of. Beijing has good reason to fear TV-footage of demonstrations going on in ‘Greater China,' regardless whether they happen on the mainland, in Hong Kong or in Taipei. Ma Ying-jeou's approval ratings dropped, yet through this sacrifice he kept an overly pushy China at bay.
I think this argument that Ma used the beef demonstrations to send a signal to China fails for two reasons. First, the decision on beef appears to have been former NSC head Su Chi's, for which his head rolled. Second, massive and violent demonstrations occurred during the first two visits of Chinese negotiators to Taiwan. It is hard to imagine how China could be affected by demonstrations aimed at Washington and Taipei, when it had already been the target of much larger and more violent demonstrations.

The last paragraph contains words worth remembering:
Taiwan's next presidential elections are to be held in 2012. That's a long way ahead. Since Taiwan is a vibrant democracy, things can change overnight, and it's far from certain that Ma's approval ratings won't bounce back. Given that the stakes are so high, it's in the interest of both the Taiwanese business community and China that they go up again. To make things go smoothly for Ma, the Chinese government could easily resort to economic aid in a form as subtle as in 2009, when it awarded orders to Taiwanese companies to supply a large scale program that brought cheap household electronics to China's provinces. Money makes the world go around and the Chinese government, which least wants to see a failing Ma, holds US$2.4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves.
2012 is a long way off, and recovery is possible -- indeed, I suspect many of those complaining about him now will fall into line and vote Ma when the election comes around. The AS piece assumes the default posture that ECFA will be good for Taiwan and its businesses.... "it's in the interest of both the Taiwanese business community and China that they go up again" ... although that is a problematic assumption, especially on the Taiwanese side. Will China actually come and spend the big bucks for Ma to keep him in office for another four years? 2012 will definitely be an interesting election campaign....
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Monday, March 15, 2010

Evolving Colonial Formosa Again

Idle speculation: I was reading the speculative articles on the Brobdingnagian engineering project of running a vehicle tunnel under the Taiwan Strait to connect Taiwan with China. This got me thinking about water: anyone ever thought that Taiwan, with its massive water surplus (80% of the water that falls on the island runs back to the ocean) is an ideal place for a water deficit nation like China to grab? Maybe you never did, but I'd bet dollars that the CCP brain trust has. In contrast to a vehicle tunnel, running a large water pipe under the Strait is a simple and strai(gh)tforward engineering problem.

Reuters published an unintentionally humorous interview with KMT Secretary-General King Pu-tsung, Ma's hatchet man, known as "little knife". The Reuters reporter who did the interview, Ralph Jennings, is on the ground in Taipei and had no trouble identifying the problem locals have with Ma's policies (unlike some):
The KMT and DPP will face off in tense local elections at the end of this year that are seen as a bellwether for the 2012 presidential race. The KMT has already lost seats in recent by-elections on voter concerns over its pro-China policy.
King comically assured all readers that everything was going to be peachy-keen:
"ECFA can be a turning a point. Wen Jiabao said he's going to yield benefits to Taiwan, so how can you say the deal would sell out Taiwan?" King said.
Wen Jiabao said it, I believe it. Everyone knows that China's leaders are inveterate truth tellers.

There's been quite a few pixels expended in debating the effects of ECFA on Taiwan industries, but less of a focus on the way Taiwan, as a Liberty Times commentator noted a couple of weeks ago, is becoming a de facto colonial holding of China: as its industries are sucked into China's maw, the island is gearing up to supply plastics for processing, steel, and other basic industrial materials. China is not only de-industrializing the island; it is returning it back to the 1930s when Japanese planners envisioned Taiwan as a place that would provide basic industrial and agricultural inputs like rice, timber, camphor, and sugar. Former Taiwan rep and international trade specialist Benjamin Lu pointed this out in a Taipei Times interview:
“I certainly don’t believe that the proposed ECFA will provide any opportunity for Taiwan to increase its exports to the PRC [People’s Republic of China],” he said. “The reason is that what we can manufacture in Taiwan can be manufactured in mainland China at a much cheaper price. We have no competitive edge at all, even with the concession of a tariff provided by ECFA, if there is any. There is a slight chance for Taiwan to export more tropical fruit to mainland China and some semi-finished products.”
We have already seen this reversion in Mailiao, where new petrochemical and steel plants, running on state-subsidized water (supplied by a hugely destructive dam in the mountains above it), will supply the Chinese market, but another complex is going in Changhua which will borrow water and hurt a wetland (Chinese). Not just waterfowl are suffering: the Formosa Plastics coal-fired power plant at Mailiao is the fifth largest single human source of CO2 on earth. Going in Changhua is the Changgong Power Plant, another coal-eating monster that when completed will edge out the Mailiao plant to become number four. The plant is being built to serve Changbin Industrial Park, slated for completion this year, on the coast north of Lukang. This entirely retrograde industrial movement, for the sake of China, is punishing Taiwan's dwindling natural resources and warming the earth. Our industrial structure is not the only thing being shaped by increased contact with China.

Taiwan News argues in another hard hitting editorial that the title of the cross-strait economic agreements constitutes an acceptance of domestic status vis-a-vis China, in contrast to Ma's promises that ECFA will not impinge on the island's sovereignty. To wit:
After all, a cursory review of trade agreements between Beijing and other countries indicates that the PRC is meticulous in ensuring proper "protocol" and insisting on the use of formal titles. The innumerable examples include the "Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the People's Republic of China" signed on November 4, 2002.

The only exceptions appear to be pacts between Beijing and the subordinate "special administrative regions" of the former British colony of Hong Kong and the former Portugese colony of Macau.

In both of the "closer economic partnership agreements" (CEPA) signed with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the Macao SAR on June 29, 2003 and October 18, 2003, respectively, Beijing refrained from using its formal status and instead used the term "Mainland" (literally "neidi" or "inside territory" instead of the usual "dalu") and the geographical phrases "Hong Kong" and "Macau."

Through footnotes, the preambles of both CEPA pacts also explicitly define "the Mainland" as referring to "the entire People's Republic of China," which includes the two SARs.

The "cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement" title apparently agreed upon by the KMT and the PRC's ruling Chinese Communist Party departs from international protocol and is also by no means "ambigous." Instead, its use constitutes direct evidence of acceptance of a "domestic" status within the PRC parallel to that of the Hong Kong and Macau "special administrative regions."

Hence, the refusal of the Ma government to insist, at the very least, that the formal WTO titles of both parties be used in the title and body of the ECFA constitutes a profoundly "political" concession of our international legal status as a state or "economic legal entity" and has troubling implications for Taiwan's sovereignty and economic autonomy and horizons.
For Beijing, ECFA is about annexing Taiwan. D'oh. James Wang commented in the Taipei Times on ECFA, saying it is pretty clear what Beijing wants:
Once Taiwan buys into the “one China” principle, Beijing will be taking a mile for every inch given to it and say “thank you very much.” It will be reaping its “early harvest,” alright: a present of Taiwan’s sovereignty. It may even well mete out its concessions and remove the odd missile or two, orchestrating a “warming” of the Taiwan Strait situation and pushing for “peace talks.” This would, in turn, make all the more plausible China’s case to the US that there is no real need to sell arms to Taiwan.
All you can say is BINGO. Meanwhile government officials continue to insist ECFA will be signed in the very near future. Please note the government's constantly shifting rationale for it -- remember when we had to have ECFA IMMEDIATELY to save the economy? Oh yeah, two years have passed with no ECFA, but we have recovery already now with the links to the China market we already had under the DPP. Then it was to prevent marginalization by the ASEAN FTAs -- which have turned out to be not so great for those trading with China. Note also that the announcement is from V-P Vincent Siew: remember when he was the amazing technocrat that Ma promised to make Czar of All Economies in Taiwan? Yea, verily, it was the bright spring of our naivete.

In other ECFA news, AFP reports that Taiwan's financial industry wants to be able to take a 30% stake in Chinese banks.
The government hopes such a move would let any individual Taiwanese bank to buy up 30 percent of any Chinese lender, as opposed to the current 20 percent ceiling China imposes of foreign investors, the Commercial Times said.

It said Taiwan also hopes its banks will be allowed to open branches as soon as they enter the mainland market, instead of having following the prerequisite that foreign banks have to first open representative offices for two years.
As I have been saying, the main beneficiary of ECFA is going to be the financial sector; local manufacturing industries are going to be decimated. Will China really let Taiwan take out stakes in its financial sector? That isn't how China works.

Businessweek offered another China Pessimism article: biggest bubble in history. Because China is so opaque, it is hard to make judgments about what kind of handle the government has on the problem. Yet, if you recall famous Taiwan scandals that occurred in the credit sector during the martial law era, such as the massive Tsai family conglomerate collapse, one might argue that the authorities in authoritarian states show a marked reluctance to put a stop to things once the size of the problem grows. Hence that chilly feeling between the shoulder blades when one contemplates China's bubble -- you know that bubble economy that Ma desperately wants Taiwan to graft itself onto. Wouldn't it be ironic if ECFA came online just as China's growth went ka-boom!

Idle speculation: is the desire to annex Taiwan a factor in keeping China's yuan down? The material basis for Taiwan's independence is its vibrant industrial base, which will undoubtedly be stimulated by a rise in the yuan, both in terms of rising demand for exports when the currency appreciates, and because as the cost of manufacturing rises, firms will move out (and back to Taiwan).
__________
Daily Links
SPECIAL:
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Thursday, March 11, 2010

ASEAN Free Trade Agreements Disaster for all but China

It's really time for the reality to penetrate the debate over ECFA: Taiwan, with so many industries in direct competition with China, is going to be blasted by waves of cheap Chinese junk. The Straits Times has the call:
The China-Asean Free Trade Area (Cafta), which kicked in at the start of this year, has been greeted with little enthusiasm in the region.

A Philippine Daily Inquirer story, headlined 'The China-Asean Free Trade Area: Propaganda and reality', contended that contrary to the positive spin by the country's leaders, 'most of the advantages will probably flow to China'.

A Jakarta Post analysis urged Indonesian companies to 'face the music' and take on the challenge of competition from China. The most telling headline was in Beijing's China Daily: 'China allays fears of Asean nations over Cafta'.
This article begins with Thailand, which China absolutely screwed:
Thailand, in particular, had a bitter experience. In 2005, tariffs for 200 items of vegetables and fruits were abolished. Thailand expected to export tropical fruit to China and import winter fruit from it at zero tariff. But what happened was that Thai farmers of garlic, longan and other fruit and vegetables were decimated by cheap Chinese imports. Worse, Chinese officials reportedly either refused to lower tariffs on Thai imports or left the Thai produce to rot in warehouses.

The Thai experience fanned fears that Asean would become the dumping ground for cheap Chinese agricultural and manufactured products. And that fear is not unfounded.

Already, smuggling of cheap Chinese shoes into Viet Nam has done damage to the shoe industry there. In Indonesia, cheap imports of clothes, toys and electronic goods, often through smuggling, have hurt local manufacturers of such products. What would happen when the floodgates to cheap Chinese products are thrown wide open? It is no wonder that Indonesia has asked for a two-year delay in tariff reductions for 228 items.

The trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) figures are not encouraging either. Since 2004, tariffs between the two sides have been coming down, and Asean's trade deficit with China has widened. From 2000 to 2008, China-Asean trade grew sixfold to US$198 billion (S$280 billion). But Asean's trade deficit also widened five times to US$21.6 billion. Asean's cumulative FDI in China was US$52 billion in 2008. By comparison, China's FDI in Asean was just US$2.8 billion.
This piece, after discussing hopes for change in this situation (yeah, good luck with that), goes on to make the connection between China's duplicitous, mercantile trade policies and its territorial ambitions...
Still, if the Chinese hope to allay the fears of Asean, they should do more to assure that bilateral trade and investment flows are not skewed in their favour. If Beijing cannot reassure Asean that the grouping has little to fear from it economically, how can it begin to address fears over its intentions in issues such as the territorial disputes it has with various countries in the region?
So many of Taiwan's industries have counterparts in China. Cheap Chinese junk is going to go through the island's economy like a tsunami. Hey journalists! Someone needs to ask Ma at a press conference a direct question about these economic realities: how can Taiwan expect to succeed where everyone else is experiencing problems?

Note also that according to the FDI figures, China doesn't reinvest in its ASEAN partners. Money comes in, but it doesn't go out. US Establishment China policy is to tame China by ensconcing it in the global financial and trade system like Gulliver pinned to the sand by the ropes of the Lilliputians. This policy appears to be a failure (except for the well connected foreign policy types making the big bucks off consulting and similar work, which is why the "tame China by binding it to us" approach will always have spokesmen): the world system is finding China too big a mercantilist nugget to swallow.

UPDATE: Walden Bello has a long piece on this problem in the NI (h/t to David in comments), similar to a piece of his I blogged on earlier.

_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Friday, January 01, 2010

Til Taxes Do Us Part

Last week's SEF-ARATS negotiations surprised everyone when the two parties couldn't come to an agreement on the tax issue. The CNA reports....
Taiwan has no knowledge of why China altered its decision. Both sides were fully aware that further negotiation was necessary on the question of whether taxes should be collected based on their country of origin or the country in which they reside, " Lee told ruling Kuomintang (KMT) Legislator Lo Shu-lei at a legislative hearing on the cross-Taiwan Strait talks.

Lo said she suspected the agreement was shelved at the last minute because of a backlash from China-based Taiwanese businesses, which were worried they might be penalized by Chinese authorities for tax evasion based on information provided by Taiwan under the terms of the planned agreement.

Lee responded that paying tax is both an obligation and responsibility of a country's citizens, and he said Taiwan and China would only exchange information in serious tax evasion cases "in line with Taiwan's laws." KMT Legislator Lai Shyh-bao attributed the breakdown in talks to opposition from Hong Kong, which feared it might be unable to collect taxes once a deal was signed from the many Taiwan businessmen who have invested in China through the former British colony.
The ECFA agreement, after all, is supposed to help business. But Taiwan's small businessmen have grown used to working in a tax-free environment. Further, there is a deep distrust of Chinese firms among Taiwanese businessmen in China:
Tony Cheng (鄭榮文), honorary chairman of the Taiwan Merchant Association in Shenzhen, said yesterday that few of his association’s up to 4,000 SMEs were inclined to partner with Chinese businessmen.

“Like tying the knot in a marriage, it’s always hard to find the right [business] partner here in China who shares your business strategies, philosophy and integrity,” Cheng said by telephone.

He nevertheless said that he didn’t rule out the possibility that Taiwanese businesses, which have an edge in research and development, quality control and management skills, can locate suitable Chinese partners to take advantage of their locally well-known brands and their knowledge about the Chinese market to create synergies for both sides.
Despite the loud proclamations of blood ties and whatnot from the pro-China politicians and media, the reality is that working in China has not created a groundswell of support for annexation among businessmen there. Quite the opposite. It looks like many in the business world are not seeing much beneficial in ECFA; formalizing the relationship between Taiwan and China may threaten their operations. What are the implications for Ma Ying-jeou in 2012?

In other cross-strait news, Dow Jones reported that China will permit transshipment
China's Ministry of Transport said it will relax its rules and allow container shipping companies that ply the Taiwan Strait to carry transshipment cargo, or goods originating from other economies.
...but it's still a "domestic" route:
Taiwan and China established direct cross-strait shipping links in December 2008, but only Taiwanese and Chinese ships registered in Taiwan, China, or Hong Kong are allowed to ply the cross-strait route, and cargo was limited to goods originating from Taiwan or China.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Stuffed to the gills with Beef

CHEEVER: I think it be the cows, sir.

I had a great post planned out for today. My starting point was going to be my friend J Michael's post asking if the DPP is being played by the KMT on the US beef issue. I was going to reference the history of the KMT attempting to stoke anti-Americanism in Taiwan, starting the discussion with the fake riots in 1957 and then zoom through the riots in 1978 when Warren Christopher showed up to announce that recognition has been switched to China. Then I was going to ask if the beef issue -- determined at the highest levels by Ma's right-hand man Su Chi, head of the National Security Council -- was just another in a long string of these events (like the refusal of US aid during Morakot) meant to create separation between the US and the people of Taiwan. I was even going to relate it to the KMT's long-term goal of separating Japan and Taiwan too, in order to move the island into China's orbit. Boy it was going to be a great post.

I used to think the beef fracas might be interesting somehow, but now I'm just so damned tired of this issue of subsidized, environmentally destructive, imported dead cattle flesh being a "health" and a political issue in heavily polluted Taiwan with its mass use of agricultural chemicals and antibiotics and relentless habitat destruction, along with consumption of things like snake blood, shark fins, and cockroaches, that I decided not to write the post. Really, there is nothing more to be said.

For god's sake, DPP, stop the insanity. In case that isn't clear, stop the insanity. If you're going to pick an issue to piss off the US, pick something worth fighting over. The KMT is playing you guys. Beef is an issue the bad guys are using to drive a wedge between the DPP and the US. And you take the blame.....

So instead of long post, dear reader, consult the two good pieces in today's Taipei Times. The first is an extensive article on the Ma Administration delegation to the US, now canceled, and the beef issue in general. The second is an editorial on the beef issue and the incompetence of the government. Taiwan News has a piece on US experts saying that Taiwan has mishandled the issue, and that it will affect a Taiwan-US FTA. Hello, what's more important? Beef or overseas markets? If Uncle Sam wants to subsize our consumption of high quality steak, by all means, let him!

UPDATE: Many good comments arguing against this in the comments below.
_________________
Daily Links
  • The Economist's Strait Talking notes that public support for Ma is waning. It says "The few thousand Chinese tourists who come every day are making little economic impact." The actual figure is less than 2,000. It also says "[ECFA] is born out of his fear that Taiwan, already ravaged by the financial crisis, will be marginalised as a free-trade pact between China and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) takes effect this January." Do people really believe that nonsense? ECFA is born from Ma's desire to marginalize Taiwan into a province of China. Period. The first step is integrating Taiwan's economy into China's. Period. The ASEAN FTAs are just a convenient excuse. There is some genuine fear in certain quarters that Taiwan will be marginalized by the FTAs, but nothing suggests Ma really cares.
  • This Taipei Times commentary discusses some of the internal politics of KMT elites and their meetings with Chen Yunlin.
  • My friend Andrew has just finished a new book on postwar justice in Germany.
  • The latest Taiwan What's Up is out.
  • Chinese admiral says the Peaceful Riser© needs an overseas base.
  • SPECIAL: Krugman on Chinese mercantilism.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!