The disputes between the US and China keep getting worse. Various international organizations, including the Wi-Fi Alliance and the SD Association, have either barred or restricted the membership of China’s Huawei Technologies, which has also voluntarily withdrawn from the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association.
Purely from the point of view of trade disputes, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Germany all had big trade surpluses with the US in the mid-1980s, when their domestic investment regimes and markets were to varying degrees closed to outsiders.
Due to those issues, plus intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements and so on, the US imposed severe sanctions on these countries.
Just like China now, these countries met the conditions for measures to be taken against them under the terms of US laws such as Section 301 of the Trade Act, Section 337 of the Tariff Act and the Special 301 Report.
Pressure from the US, plus the terms of the 1985 Plaza Accord, led Taiwan, Japan and South Korea to open their markets to imports, cut import tariffs and allow their currencies to greatly rise in value relative to the US dollar.
In the current trade dispute between the US and China, the US is likewise defending fair trade and calling on China to open up its market.
It is imposing punitive tariffs on China in response to Beijing’s government subsidies, dumping and IPR infringements.
The WTO has defined China as a non-market economy and accused it of infringing international free-trade relations, which gives WTO member states grounds for imposing sanctions on China.
However, what is different about current US policy regarding China is that the US already made a policy adjustment two years ago, changing its view of China from a strategic partner to a strategic competitor.
The disputes between the US and China therefore cannot be discussed solely in terms of trade relations.
In response to China’s infiltration and theft of cutting-edge technology, the US has instituted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which authorizes the president to impose sanctions in response to any matters that harm US national security or its foreign policy interests.
The US has imposed restrictions on exports of US-related products, technology and services to China under the Export Administration Act and Export Administration Regulations, and even before that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States imposed strict regulations on Chinese investment and acquisitions in the US.
These measures are quite distinct from purely economic issues, since they start out from the most crucial issues of national defense and security strategic orientation.
Furthermore, the technologies in question are dual-use in that they have both military and civilian applications.
If related investments and exports are not strictly regulated, they could be used for developing weapons.
This is especially true considering that China is continually using things like its Belt and Road Initiative, its military expansion in the South China Sea and backdoors in electronic devices to further its ambition to achieve worldwide military and economic hegemony.
China’s behavior these days is quite different from the low-profile stance it adopted in the early years of reform and opening up, and this is what has triggered the US’ bans against technological warfare by companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
As time goes by, such bans might be extended to include manufacturers of surveillance equipment and drones, facial recognition technology such as Apple’s Face ID and so on.
Under the Export Administration Act’s rules on banned items, products manufactured abroad whose software originates from the US are also banned from being sold to Huawei.
Consequently, Taiwan’s electronics and related industries must be careful. Even if they think that they are not being affected at present, if they wait until the US requirements regarding percentage of “US technological content” are lowered, like the percentage of terrorism or totalitarian countries, it might be too late.
It might not really matter whether Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co is banned from supplying Huawei subsidiary HiSilicon Technologies, because when companies like ARM, Qualcomm and Quorvo have already been banned from selling their products to Huawei, it means that Huawei’s brain, heart, nerves and arteries are already being choked off, so what kind of supplies could it still really need?
Taiwan’s government, business and industry must understand that what is going on between the US and China is not just a trade dispute, and it might go on for a very long time.
Their trade “war” could be followed by a technology war, financial war (freezing assets), diplomatic war, strategic blockades and so on.
Given the risks that lie ahead, Taiwan must take precautions so that we are ready to respond at any time.
Ray Chung is manager of Honeywell Taiwan’s contract and law department.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under