On Nov. 10, US President Donald Trump ended his visit to China. He might have received a big “gift” of US$253.5 billion there, but as soon as he arrived in Da Nang, Vietnam, he said that the US would no longer tolerate dumping, currency manipulation, government subsidies and other chronic trade abuses, and that it is necessary to restore fair competition to distorted markets.
Trump is the first global leader to question globalization. Before the 1980s, nations had an unshakable belief in globalization. Trade volumes grew and poorer nations could also share in the wealth, thanks to investments by developed nations.
When China joined the free market, this belief in globalization as a trading system that would benefit the entire world began to falter, because China is an autocracy that used all of its might in the pursuit of global economic dominance.
The effectiveness of free trade, barter and division of labor can only come to fruition if global trade is in a general state of equilibrium.
Japan also experienced a gigantic trade surplus, but it still was not more than US$40 billion to US$50 billion, and following global condemnation, it allowed the yen to appreciate.
China’s approach has been different: To be able to enjoy the benefits of globalization, Beijing depreciated the yuan from 1.5 yuan to the US dollar in 1980 to 8.5 yuan in 1995, and it did so without experiencing coups, upheavals or inflation.
The move suppressed labor costs to levels between one-20th and one-40th of the cost in developed nations and China used that to attract foreign capital, steal technology and build its position as the world’s factory.
China’s trade surplus stands at US$500 billion annually, 10 times the size of Japan’s highest surplus. Can the global trade system really withstand the effects of a trade deficit of US$500 billion with China every year?
China’s exchange-rate manipulation and dumping have given it a foreign-exchange reserve of more than US$4 trillion. It uses this surplus to buy up advanced technology companies and concentrate the power of global economic growth in its hands, maintaining annual economic growth of 7 percent.
This is the result of sacrificing other nations’ economic growth.
Taiwan is the biggest victim of China’s policy. Taiwanese businesses are moving to China in droves, causing Chinese incomes and economic growth to rise, while Taiwanese incomes have dropped and economic growth has fallen to between 1 and 2 percent.
Japan and the US have also sacrificed growth. In the US, this has caused a backlash among blue-collar workers, resulting in Trump’s election as president.
Bizarrely, some academics and media outlets in Taiwan still see China as Taiwan’s savior and think of China’s US$30 billion trade deficit with Taiwan [Ministry of Finance data showed a trade deficit of US$63.03 billion for the first 10 months of the year] as a sign of goodwill.
However, this deficit is the result of Taiwanese businesses relocating their production to China, which is benefiting China and negatively affecting Taiwan.
Taking a pragmatic look at the situation, it is difficult to see businesses that have moved nearly all their production — perhaps about 80 percent — to China as Taiwanese businesses. From a fiscal and management point of view, the government should treat these “Taiwanese” businesses differently to bring operations for companies grounded in Taiwan back to reasonable levels.
At least Trump keeps saying that he will put the US first and restore fair competition to the distorted market.
Could Taiwan do the same? It is just a matter of determination.
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser and former managing director and chairman of First Commercial Bank.
Translated by Perry Svensson
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS