China has begun taking action over alleged antitrust violations in the auto industry, raiding or investigating many large foreign companies and applying pressure on them to lower prices or be fined. This is rattling foreign firms in China, and some experts and academics are calling on the international community to launch joint countermeasures. The smell of gunpowder is emanating from what could develop into a trade war between China and the rest of the world.
China’s National Development and Reform Commission is investigating a dozen automakers, such as Volkswagen AG-owned Audi, BMW, Daimler AG-owned Mercedes-Benz, Tata Motors-owned Jaguar Land Rover, Fiat-owned Chrysler, Toyota and Honda. Since last month, all these companies have announced car or component price cuts.
In addition, over the past month, the commission has raided the offices of Microsoft Corp, Qualcomm Inc, Caterpillar Inc, Mead Johnson Nutrition Co, and Abbott and Danone, all foreign companies targeted by anti-monopoly investigations.
Add to this the Chinese government’s decision to request that government institutions no longer purchase products from Apple and Cisco, that financial institutions should not purchase US information products, including IBM server solutions, electronic databases from Oracle and storage devices from EMC Corp, the world’s largest manufacturer of computer storage solutions.
The Chinese government is attacking foreign companies on a wide front, but the legal foundations and the reasons for doing so are general and unspecific, which leaves the impression that China is intentionally attacking foreign companies to create business opportunities for local companies and promote Chinese industry. Although many companies will accept price cuts or fines to be allowed to remain in the Chinese market, many of them are unhappy with the fuzzy laws and regulations, and the opaque and unpredictable business environment. It has even been suggested that international businesses join hands and take legal and political action to demand transparency and protect their rights in response to Beijing’s anti-monopoly push.
For international companies, the Chinese market is very important. China’s past double-digit growth made foreign businesses salivate, but they are also concerned over risk and uncertainty in the market. During its period of rapid economic growth, China was in great need of foreign capital, technology and marketing, but as local Chinese companies have expanded and grown, they are now competing directly with foreign firms. The result is that the relationship between Chinese industry and foreign business is changing from a welcoming and cooperative relationship into one of head-on competition.
The whole thing might just be a storm in a tea cup and once the two sides have made their positions clear and initiated talks to lay down the new rules of the game it might settle down. However, it could also develop into an international trade war with each side boycotting the other’s products and services. If the former comes to pass, then it would be a positive development, helping revitalize China’s economy. However, if the latter comes to pass, Taiwanese businesspeople in China who hold dual nationality might become the victims of the trade war due to their conflicting roles. However, if they correctly assess the situation and respond to it appropriately, they might be able to take advantage of the possible situation and come out as winners.
In the case of a trade war, the government and Taiwanese businesspeople in China must be alert to and aware of the risks of doing business in that nation and come up with ways to respond to a change in the situation as swiftly as possible.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS