China-Taiwan "free-trade pact"

[Martian]

U.S. State Department: "U.S. does not support Taiwan independence"

Just to clarify, In what context do you mean 'the opposing minority view'? This forum? the internet? China? East Asia? the world?

Let's try this again. Taiwan independence is off the table. No knowledgeable or serious person talks about Taiwan independence.

The policy of the United States as stated on the website of the U.S. Department of State is very clear: "the United States does not support Taiwan independence."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm

"U.S.-TAIWAN RELATIONS
On January 1, 1979, the United States changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communiqué that announced the change, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The Joint Communiqué also stated that within this context the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan.
...
Following de-recognition, the United States terminated its Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. However, the United States has continued the sale of appropriate defensive military equipment to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides for such sales and which declares that peace and stability in the area are in U.S. interests. Sales of defensive military equipment are also consistent with the 1982 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communiqué.

The United States position on Taiwan is reflected in the Three Communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The U.S. insists on the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences and encourages dialogue to help advance such an outcome. The U.S. does not support Taiwan independence. President George W. Bush stated on December 9, 2003 that the United States is opposed to any attempt by either side to unilaterally alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. While the United States welcomes recent exchanges that enhance channels of communication between leaders in Beijing and Taipei, the United States urges Beijing and Taipei to further advance cross-Strait cooperation and dialogue, including direct discussions between the authorities in Beijing and elected leaders in Taipei.
...
Maintaining diplomatic relations with the P.R.C. has been recognized to be in the long-term interest of the United States by seven consecutive administrations; however, maintaining strong, unofficial relations with Taiwan also a major U.S. goal, in line with our desire to further peace and stability in Asia. In keeping with our one China policy, the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence, but it does support Taiwan's membership in appropriate international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the Asian Development Bank, where statehood is not a requirement for membership. In addition, the U.S. supports Taiwan's meaningful participation in appropriate international organizations where its membership is not possible."

 

[Martian]

"One China" Policy means No Taiwan Statehood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy

"The One-China policy (simplified Chinese: 一个中国; traditional Chinese: 一個中國; pinyin: yī gè Zhōngguó) states that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is the sole legitimate government of mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Countries seeking diplomatic relations with the PRC must acknowledge this policy and refrain from maintaining official relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan)."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/13/content_7784393.htm

"India to continue one-China policy
www.chinaview.cn 2008-03-13 21:29:45

NEW DELHI, March 13 (Xinhua) -- India will continue to abide by the one-China policy and oppose any activity that is against the one-China principal, said Navtej Sarna, spokesman of Indian Ministry of External Affairs on Thursday.

In an exclusive interview with Xinhua on Taiwan issue, Sarna said the government of India has followed the one-China policy and does not have diplomatic or official relations with Taiwan. The India's policy is consistent and has been conveyed to the government of the People's Republic of China on several occasions. 　

Most recently, he said, during the prime minister of India's visit to China in January 2008, in a joint statement, the Indian side recalls that India was among the first countries to recognize that there is one China, and that its one-China policy has remained unchanged.

"Our prime minister's meetings with the Chinese leaders conveyed India's one-China policy clear and consistent. India has never supported Taiwan independence or UN membership. I think that should make our position clear," said the spokesman."

http://www.twocircles.net/2008jan14/india_china_pledge_promote_nuclear_cooperation.html

"Jan 14, 2008 ... India, China Pledge To Promote Nuclear Cooperation ... New Delhi declared its adherence to "one China" policy and Beijing supported India's ..."

 

[Martian]

Every major country adheres to the "One China" policy

The One China situation of Mainland China and Taiwan must be looked at in the proper historical and current world context. As former President Jiang Zemin said to President Bill Clinton, Mainland China views Taiwan as being analogous to the American Civil War. For fifty years after the civil war in 1949, Taiwan had always unanimously agreed that the Chinese Civil War was unfinished. For decades, the KMT plotted to retake Mainland China by military force.

However, in the last ten years, the bad DPP party decided to push for Taiwanese independence. You cannot just walk away from a fifty-year civil war and unilaterally declare that it is over. Just like the American Civil War, secession is not recognized unless the whole country agrees to it. Secession is illegal. Similarly, Taiwan may not secede from China. The Chinese Civil War is unfinished.

In 1971, Taiwan was ejected from the U.N., because the world only recognizes one legitimate seat at the U.N. for China. The U.N. and the world agree with Mainland China that it is the sole representative of China and Taiwan. Hence, the consistent pledges of adherence to the "One China" principle by every major country in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation...Resolution_2758

"United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971 recognized the representatives of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek "from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations".[1]"

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6934046.html

"U.S. reaffirms commitment to one-China policy
08:11, March 30, 2010

The United States on Monday reaffirmed its commitment to the one-China policy, saying that it' s a commitment that should be the bedrock of the foundation of its relationship with China.

"The U.S. position on one-China policy is unchanged," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said at a briefing at the Foreign Press Center in downtown Washington D.C.."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/21/...in1426114.shtml

"Mar 21, 2006 ... Russia, China Pledge Closer Ties ... "Russia will continue the policy supporting 'one China' declared by the Chinese government ... and ..."

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_...n/er/111567.pdf

"Nov 30, 2009 ... The EU reaffirmed its commitment to one China policy and ... follow-up EU-China NZEC project, and the pledge by the European Commission ..."

http://nigeria2.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/Chi...0204389659.html

"Feb 16, 2007 ... China, Japan pledge to strengthen defense exchanges ... He noted that the Japanese government has always supported the one-China policy. ..."

http://www.twocircles.net/2008jan14/india_...ooperation.html

"Jan 14, 2008 ... India, China Pledge To Promote Nuclear Cooperation ... New Delhi declared its adherence to "one China" policy and Beijing supported India's ..."

 

[Martian]

Current Status of Chinese Reunification Talks

The current status of peace talks on Chinese reunification is as follows:
..........
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China offers Taiwan peace talks

"Page last updated at 02:27 GMT, Thursday, 5 March 2009

China offers Taiwan peace talks

Wen Jiabao addressing National People's Congress - 5/3/2009
Any peace talks would be held under the "one-China policy", Mr Wen said

China is ready to talk to Taiwan about ending hostilities, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said at the start of the annual session of China's parliament.

Mr Wen said China was ready to "create conditions for ending the state of hostility" with the island.

Beijing claims sovereignty over Taiwan, which split from the mainland at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949.

Relations between the two have improved since last year when a new president, Ma Ying-jeou, was elected in Taiwan."
..........
Taiwan to China: remove missiles before peace talks | World | Reuters

"Taiwan to China: remove missiles before peace talks
Tue Apr 6, 2010 3:51pm IST

TAIPEI (Reuters) - Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou demanded on Tuesday that China remove missiles aimed at the island before any peace talks, comments that could slow recent momentum in relations, including two-way trade that has reached $109 billion."

 

[Rage]

Re: The Final Analysis

I have given due consideration to the opposing minority view.

Fifty years is a long time.

My final analysis is that the probability of China-Taiwan reunification is 85% that it will happen and 15% that it may not happen within 50 years.

I think a more accurate and truer assessment of the realities would be the reverse, an 85% probability that 'unification' would never happen and a 15% that it may happen within the next fifty years. This seems to hold true, particularly given due consideration to public opinion, the dichotomies of politics and economics and the fact that the 'pro-China' Ma is likely to lose the election in 2012.

Let me put this in perspective for you:

Monday, December 14, 2009

Poll statistics regarding Taiwan's independence vs. unification

Another look at the Global Views survey of October 2009

For several weeks, I have owed my readers the second part of my analysis of the recent Global Views Magazine opinion poll. The poll asked the usual questions about the attitudes of Taiwanese towards "independence versus unification." I've finally gotten around to putting this analysis into a presentable format.

At the bottom of the poll is a description of the methods used [sic throughout]:

This survey was conducted by GVSRC from 6.20 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. from Oct. 14-16, 2009. It was conducted with random-digit-dial sampling and computer-assisted telephone interviewing methods. 1006 Taiwanese people who are 20 or older completed the interview. One can say with 95% confidence level that the theoretical margin of sampling error is ±3.1%. Gender, living areas, ages, educational level and other features of the interviewees have undergone weighting procedure and test of the sample's representativeness in the survey results. The funding of the survey came from the Global Views Monthly.

I wasn't sure if each person interviewed had gone through the whole set of questions, or only a portion of the questions. If each person had completed the entire questionnaire via telephone interview (which seemed to be the case), I wondered why there were some inconsistent outcomes within their own survey.

I don't want to blame the pollster for this or to suspect data manipulation right away because sometimes people are tired of answering the questions at the end of a telephone interview, and they may provide inconsistent answers. However, from my experience, I can conclude that the survey gave inconsistent results -- assuming there was no data and/or sampling manipulation at all such as removing samples which gave unfavorable results or including additional samples (from the original randomly selected samples) which gave favorable results.

The abbreviations used here will be the same as those in my earlier analysis:

SD: Maintain the status-quo now, decide later
SF: Maintain the status-quo forever
SI: Maintain the status-quo now, declare independence later
SU: Maintain the status-quo now, proceed with unification later
II: Independence immediately (or as soon as possible)
UI: Unification immediately (or as soon as possible)
NA: No answer or don't know
TT: Total percentage who responded

The time when the poll was taken will be denoted with MM/YYYY

M: Mainland [sic] Affairs Council (MAC) statistics
G: Global Views Magazine statistics
AV: Average statistics for the year-to-date

The percentage sign is omitted throughout.

Global Views Magazine conducted an earlier poll in May 2009 (refer to page 5 of the linked PDF file) which tells us:

SD = 44.9%, SF = 11.5%, SI + II (as in that survey it was not distinguished between the two) = 25.4%, and SU + UI = 8.3%, a total response rate of 90.1%.

The first thing I did was to add up the figures to reveal the total percentage of those who responded to find out the percentage who refused to respond or didn't know the answer. In the October 2009 Global Views survey, there was a total of 10.7% who either refused to answer or didn't know the answer, whereas the figure for the MAC survey was 6.3%. Generally speaking, a greater response rate gives more accurate poll results.

The next thing to do was to compare past trends with present figures. The SI of 10.3% is low compared to past trends as well as to the MAC result of 14.9% in September 2009, this coupled with the UI of 4% -- which is unusually high, as I mentioned in my previous post that this figure had never been as high before (only 3 out of 28 times had this figure ever exceeded 3%) -- made me suspect that maybe there was some attempt here to give an overall false impression (since most people will not compare the October 2009 survey with past trends) that people are shifting from the "status quo first then independent later" to the "unification immediately" group. But read on, and you will find out why this is not true when compared with the statistics of past MAC surveys.

The next task was to compare Global Views' results from the above chart with the different questions within the same Global Views poll.

The first question was whether one would agree (A) or disagree (D) with eventual unification with China, and here are the results (from page 3 of the link at the top of this post):

Notice that the people who want independence (SI + II) would answer "disagree" to this question while the people who would like to maintain the status quo forever (SF) would either answer "disagree" or would not give an answer to the above question. So, the percentage of "disagree" here contains (SI + II + some SF), and the "no answer" figure actually contains (NA + some remaining SF).

The second question in this survey asked whether one would agree or disagree with Taiwan's eventual (formal) independence. The results were as follows:

Notice that the people who want unification (SU + UI) would answer "disagree" to this question while the people who would like to maintain the status quo forever would answer either disagree or would simply not give an answer to this question. Therefore, the percentage of "disagree" here contains (SU + UI + some SF), and the "no answer" would contain (NA + some other SF).

Notice also that the total percentage of respondents to the second question dropped slightly -- from 84.7% to 81.3%. One explanation for this could be that some respondents thought that once they had provided their answer to the first question, it would not be necessary to provide their answer to the second question, viewing the answer to the second one as obvious or redundant once they had answered the first question. The immediate effect of this is that the second question got a higher non-response rate.

Since the same people (samples) had answered both questions plus the question contained in the chart at the very beginning, we can analyze further.

If we take the percentage who disagree with eventual unification (69%) minus the percentage who agree with the eventual independence (47.2%), it will give us the percentage of people who want SF (status quo forever) since the same people (samples) had answered both questions:

69 - 47.2 = 21.8%

i.e. (SI + II + some SF) – (SI + II) = some SF, and the remaining SF are hidden among the non-responses (NA)

The SF should therefore be greater than 21.8%.

On the other hand, if we take the percentage who disagree with eventual independence (34.1%) minus the percentage who agree with eventual unification (15.7%), it will also give us the percentage of people who want SF (status quo forever) for the same reason stated above:

34.1 – 15.7 = 18.4%

i.e. (SU + UI + some SF) – (SU + UI) = some SF, and the remaining SF are hidden in the non-responses (NA)

The SF should therefore be greater than 18.4%.

In either situation, the SF (those who wish to maintain the status quo forever) cannot be less than 18.4%, but the chart at the very beginning has the SF at 11%.

This shows us that the survey actually gives three widely-differing figures for SF: 11%, >21.8%, and >18.4%. It is quite inconsistent to have three different figures in one survey obtained from the same samples. Could it be because this figure was intentionally kept low by the Global Views pollster in order to give a higher percentage to the SD (thereby creating the false impression that many people want to keep the status quo now and decide later, including the option of unification), but in reality the 47.2% (assuming this percentage is not an underestimate) itself tells us that the SI + II = 10.3 + 19 = 29.3% from the first chart is an underestimate of people who want eventual independence. The rise from 29.3% (the chart at the very beginning) to 47.2% (the second question) is a difference of 17.9%, hidden in the SD.

The SU + UI = 4.3 + 4 = 8.3% from the first chart compared to the MAC result of 10.4% in September and the earlier trend suggests that there is a slight drop in the percentage of people supporting eventual unification (Could recent cross-strait exchanges have made some pan-blue supporters want to maintain the status quo forever?), but when given no such choice of maintaining the status quo, the percentage of people who want eventual unification rises from 8.3% to 15.7%, the difference in the rise is 7.4%, hidden in the SD.

Comparing the 17.9% (two paragraphs above) with that 7.4%, one can see that the increase in support for independence is more than twofold that of the increase in support for unification (hidden in the SD).

If we add the percentage of people who agree with eventual unification (15.7%) and the percentage who agree with eventual independence (47.2%), it is 62.9%, and if a person neither agrees with unification nor agrees with independence, the person must be SF or NA, meaning 37.1% (100 – 62.9 = 37.1) of the people who either want to maintain the status quo forever or who don't know or refuse to answer. Since the percentage of people who either don't know or refuse to answer does not usually exceed 15% (as a matter of fact, under normal circumstance and from past trend it ranges from about 7% to 12%), that leaves the percentage of people who want to maintain the status quo forever to be at minimum 22.1% (37.1% - 15% = 22.1%). Comparing this figure to the first chart of SF 11%, the figure of 11% is clearly an underestimate. This conservative figure of 22.1% can be compared with the MAC figure of 28% in September 2009 or with past trends ranging from 19.25% in 2007 but increasing yearly. This group (possibly wanting to avoid war with China) has the biggest percentage increase and the implication has been discussed in my previous post on this subject.

Finally, let's look at yet another question on the same survey (also from page 3 of the survey linked at the very top of this post). If the two sides [Taiwan and China] come to have similar conditions, 68.3% still deemed it unnecessary to unify with China while only 11.7% said it would be OK to be unified. And the total response rate for this question is only, 68.3 + 11.7 = 80%. It's interesting that the response rate nicely and coincidently adds up to the round figure of 80% and that the response rate is even lower than that of the second question above, which was 81.3%. This 68.3% figure may likely have suffered an underestimate because the response rate was limited to 80% when in reality the actual response rate was probably higher. How could anyone explain this 11.7% (yet another inconsistency) in light of the SU + UI = [only] 8.3% in the first chart?

The trend can only be observed when we compare the statistics over a number of years. There is no actual increase in the percentage of people who want eventual unification -- as a matter of fact, that number is dropping. And most people who answered that they wish to maintain the status quo now and decide later (SD) are actually people who want to choose independence later.

I want to thank everyone for contributing to the debate and your persistence in arguing for the 15% probability. However, in your heart, I suspect that you know that you're on the low-probability side.

Au contraire, I want thank you for 'contributing' to this debate, although it is still befuddling why you would want an outcome to a problem that is detrimental to your nation.

I know that, deep within, you realize that your assessment is closer to a 'pipe dream' than anything borne out by reality or events.

Nevertheless thank you, once again.

 

[Martian]

Taiwan's AU Optronics wins big patent dispute against Korean LG Display

Yes, Yes, Yes, you genius of business MBA, But read what is says about previous year... Q1 net profit T$7.27 bln vs T$20.2 bln loss year ago... So is the profit of new year is consider making improvement or recopping last years losses...

Thanks..

Taiwan AU Optronics' big patent win against Korean LG Display will lead to significant payments of licensing fees that will further boost AU Optronics' profitability in the coming years.

This is what I had previously written about Taiwan AU Optronics' and Korean LG Display's legal battle:

Foolish Korean electronics giant LG Display falsely accused Taiwan's AU Optronics of infringing four key patents in the manufacture of liquid crystal displays (i.e. LCDs). An U.S. court found that the opposite was true. Korean LG Display had infringed the four key patents that belonged to Taiwan's AU Optronics.

Total U.S. patents granted by the U.S.P.T.O. (i.e. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) to Taiwan is a cumulative 94,579 patents. For South Korea, it is only 72,332 patents (See Patents By Country, State, and Year - All Patent Types (December 2009)). South Korean giants should think twice before they make false accusations against Taiwanese companies.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Patent-Infring...,news-6673.html

"LG Dispay LCDs May Be Banned Worldwide
6:50 PM - May 3, 2010 - By Kevin Parrish - Source : Tom's Guide US

A patent infringement case may block the sale of certain LG LCD panels.

ZoomComputerworld reports that Taiwan-based AU Optronics (AUO) is trying to halt the import and sale of LG Display LCD panels across the globe. If an injunction is successful, this could ultimately hurt consumers and their choice of LCD options, as LG currently commands over a quarter of the LCD panel market.

Over the past three and a half years, LG and AUO have been in a legal scuffle in regards to patents covering material and processes used in making LCD panels. Friday marked the end of the long, multifaceted battle, with AUO emerging as the winner based on LG's inability to prove that the rival company infringed on its LCD patents.

But in February AUO filed a counter-suit and won. Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. said in a 77-page verdict that AUO provided enough evidence to show that LG literally infringes on patents asserted by AUO--LG was unable to prove otherwise. Now AUO is warning consumers not to purchase "unauthorized infringing products from LG for sale or use in the U.S. without the need for further court action."

Computerworld said that LG may file further appeals or motions in its case, or it may reach a settlement with AUO that may prevent the possible ban of LG-based LCD screens. As it stands now, over the last six months, LG has shipped more LCD screens across the globe than any other LCD manufacturer. A cease in that kind of distribution could however allow lesser-known brands to step forward and fill the void."

 

[Martian]

China's Manifest Destiny

Kuomintang News Network

"Who would have anticipated that an unveiling ceremony for the erection of a segment of the Berlin Wall, which Germany presented to the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD), would have caused an embarrassment. On Monday, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, who is also the chairman of the TFD, presided over the ceremony. After the ceremony, a journalist suddenly asked him if the segment of the Berlin Wall erected in the TFD's yard signified that Taiwan and the Mainland would eventually be reunited.
...
Fortunately, President Ma did not attend the unveiling ceremony for the erection of the segment of the Berlin Wall in the TFD's yard. Otherwise, he would have had to decide how to answer the journalist's question about the meaning of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall--the collapse of communism or unification for the two Germanys?"

Two important groups of people, both current world economic powers (e.g. China is the world's largest exporter; Germany is world's second-largest), were separated after World War II. The ethnic West and East Germans had the support of the United States in their desire to reunify, which was accomplished in 1990. See German reunification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The United States permitted and even encouraged reunification because a reunified Germany would strengthen NATO and the European Union. In American eyes, a reunified Germany is good for America.

In sharp contrast, the US has steadfastly opposed the reunification of ethnic Mainland and Island Chinese. The US passed a national law called the Taiwan Relations Act to keep the Chinese apart as long as possible. See Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The act stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States".

This act also requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." Successive U.S. administrations have sold arms to the ROC in compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act despite demands from the PRC that the U.S. following legally non-binding Three Joint Communiques and the U.S. government's proclaimed One-China policy (which differs from the PRC's One-China Policy). The Taiwan Relations Act does not require the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, and the U.S. has adopted a policy of "strategic ambiguity" in which the U.S. neither confirms nor denies that it would intervene in such a scenario."

The United States will do everything possible to prevent a reunified China. A more powerful reunified China is not in the interest of the United States; which wants to remain as the world's sole superpower. A reunified China is definitely bad for America.

As the Germans have shown, even after decades of forced separation, ethnic kinship cannot be denied; it can only be merely delayed. For ethnic Chinese that celebrate Qinming Festival / Ancestors Day, "blood is thicker than water (i.e. family relations are more important than all other relationships...)." See GoEnglish.com Idioms = "Blood Is Thicker Than Water" = Today's English Idioms How much longer can US influence keep the Chinese apart is anybody's guess. The outcome, however, is not in doubt. The pattern of reunified Yankee and Confederate America and reunified West and East Germany is clear. History knows that Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese compatriots are destined to live in a reunified China.

After American (e.g. 1865) and German (e.g. 1990) reunifications in the 19th and 20th centuries respectively, China is next in line for reunification in the 21st century. This is China's Manifest Destiny.

 

[Martian]

Economic effects of China-Taiwan free trade agreement/ECFA will resemble NAFTA

I think it is safe to say that trade between China and Taiwan will double or possibly triple (if the ECFA has the same effect as NAFTA) in the next 15 years.

NAFTA Pros and Cons

"NAFTA Pros and Cons
Thursday April 24, 2008
See Update - July 10, 2009

The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA has become an important point in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Both Democratic candidates promise to either amend or back out of the agreement. Senator Clinton wants to halt all new trade agreements and strictly enforce existing agreements, including all regional trade agreements.

Senator Obama blames "politicians in Washington" for signing trade agreements that he says are bad for the economy because they provide perks for businesses but don't protect workers.

NAFTA is the world's largest free trade area. The agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico links 439 million people and produces $15.3 trillion in goods and services annually. Some of the advantages include a tripling of trade between the NAFTA signatories from $297 billion in 1993 to $903 billion in 2007. Critics say that the agreement has led to a net loss of 879,000 jobs in the U.S., and a decline in labor protection and degradation of the environment in Mexico."

 

[Martian]

Taiwan's impetus for ECFA is response to China-ASEAN FTA

I would be remiss to not mention that the impetus for Taiwan to sign the ECFA is to remain competitive against China's other trade partners, such as ASEAN. The China-ASEAN FTA (i.e. free trade agreement) came into full effect on January 1, 2010. You can read the economic ramifications of the China-ASEAN FTA at the following link:

China-ASEAN free trade area starts operation_English_Xinhua

"China-ASEAN free trade area starts operation
XINHUANEWS 2010-01-01 13:13:26

NANNING, Jan. 1 (Xinhua) -- China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) kicked off their free trade area (FTA) on Friday.

The world's largest FTA embracing developing countries covers a population of 1.9 billion and China-ASEAN FTA sets stage for economic integration involves about 4.5 trillion U.S. dollars of trade volume.

The average tariff on goods from ASEAN countries to China is cut down to 0.1 percent from 9.8 percent."

Big jump in exports to China

"Thursday April 1, 2010
Big jump in exports to China

MALAYSIA'S exports to China increased by 143% last year compared with 2006, said International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed.

The export value was RM8.4bil last year with a total of 23,424 certificates of origins issued, he said.

"This means that Malaysian companies are benefiting from increasing exports after the implementation of the Asean-China Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in July 2005," he said.

Under the Asean-China FTA, the import duties were reduced in stages.

On Jan 1, import duties were abolished when 90% of products traded in Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and China became duty free.

"The import duties of the remaining 10% would be reduced eventually," he said in his reply to Charles Santiago (DAP-Klang).

Mustapa said products exported to China included rubber, vegetable oil, stearic acid, raw palm oil and acetic acid.

Total exports of Malaysia to China was RM67.24bil while imports from China was worth RM60.66bil last year.

"Malaysia enjoys a trade surplus of RM6.58bil with China," he said.

Mustapa said the ministry had yet to receive any negative feedback from local industries on the implementation of Asean-China FTA.

"The iron and steel industry sector is worried about the stiff competition from China," he said.

Mustapa said the Government would monitor the impact of the FTA and would take the necessary steps to ensure that the local industry could compete with China.

"Malaysia will continue to discuss with other Asean countries to ensure that Asean-China FTA would not bring adverse effects to Asean," he said.

Currently, the Government ensures that imported products from China met the standards in all aspects including health and security."

 

[amoy]

SD: Maintain the status-quo now, decide later
SF: Maintain the status-quo forever

the above seems the steady majority

people's opinion can be changed over years. when late President Lee (though from KMT) was in office he promoted 'Taiwanese Awareness' and even openly said he felt he was a Japanese since he received education in Japan during the colonial rule. even school textbooks were revised deleting/amending most portions (geography and history) relevant to Mainland/ROC. Lee despite being Chairman of KMT then called KMT a 'foreign regime' who fled to Taiwan after losing the civil war.

ECFA (FTA) is one of Mainland's 'baits' to counter the centrifugal pull in addition to Taiwan's enormous trade surplus with Mainland. The biggest attempt is to soften hardline stance of South Taiwan peasants who're core supporters of pro-independence DPP and especially fear Mainland's dumping of agricultural produces.

Many former DPP patrons (entrepreneurs) have swung, for example, ACER/BENQ, Chimei and Evergreen Maritime/Air... in political position, as they're also big investors in Mainland and beneficiaries from economic rise of China.

DPP used to flag itself as guardians of the 'disadvantaged strata' - laborers, peasants... (labelled as Left), vs. KMT's traditional alignment with business tycoons. But DPP got 'pervert' once in power.

People most of time are motivated by 'substantial gains' rather than 'patriotic passions'.