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.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS