臺灣朝野對EFCA 的爭論，從國際間的自由貿易、對中貿易依賴、關稅減讓項目與時程、產業轉型與相關的失業輔導救濟、乃至於GTAP 等貿易模型設算問題等等，正反雙方對立，幾無共識可言。本文論證，把ECFA 定義為「純經濟」議題、甚至於再縮小為自由貿易議題，會產生一種誤導性的迷思。「全球化」、「區域化」或「貿易自由化」都是在一定的國際政治與社會結構中，由一連串各國政府互動下的歷史產物，經常反映的是強權國家的利益折衝與計算。臺灣在這種
國際政治經濟變動格局中，需要先確定自己的戰略性利益何在，才能有更細部的關稅減讓項目與時程、產業轉型與相關失業輔導與救濟等具體的方案設計。目前東亞區域主義是在開放式與封閉式之間的光譜上移動，牽涉到東亞強權之間的角力變化。本文建議，臺灣的基本戰略利益應該是在強權主導的局勢變化中維持戰略平衡。

This article analyzes Taiwan’s strategic position by signing ECFA in
terms of international political economy. We first argue that the core of the East Asian open regionalism after WWII was the US-Japan security treaty and flying geese production networks. Both of them worked together to support the US hegemony in East Asia. However, flying geese system was
transformed and extended to include China after the 1980s due to the US
financial regulation, new division of labor due to technological innovation,and Chinese economic reform. As globalization in this region was set back by the East Asian financial crisis in 1997 and failure of Doha round of the WTO negotiation, ASEAN plus one emerged as a new model for economic regionalization, in which China’s influence was weighted and created Taiwan’s ECFA issue. Nevertheless, The US hegemony, which stands for open East Asian regionalism, still holds a firm regional leadership and therefore counter-balances a closed East Asian economic regionalization.We argue that Taiwan should keep a subtle balance in this regional transformation and measure its own strategic position by four criteria, that is, regional military change, international financial standard, global final market, and technological leadership.