The first round of US-China trade talks are over. According to media reports, China has merely relaxed restrictions on foreign investment in financial institutions, and in exchange, the US is suspending raising tariffs on US$250 billion of Chinese imports.
Nevertheless, both sides said that “substantial progress” has been made in multiple areas.
It seems that a desire to strike a balance to the mutual benefit of both parties was the driver behind this “substantial progress,” while both sides are wrestling with each other to see who can hold out longer.
Due to the US-China trade dispute and Hong Kong’s “anti-extradition movement,” a number of US enterprises have been targeted by Beijing.
Meanwhile, the National Basketball Association (NBA), representing US soft power, has experienced first-hand the Chinese government’s ability to manipulate the private sector and appears to have taken orders without providing much objection.
The saga has highlighted an important message: The Chinese market belongs to the Chinese government, period. China can simply remove billboards and suspend broadcasts with a single order, as easily as “taking an orange from the table.”
As a result, a company’s performance in the Chinese market depends on what price it is willing to pay.
Eventually, NBA commissioner Adam Silver drew a red line on Oct. 8 by saying: “But if that’s the consequence of us adhering to our values, we still feel it’s critically important we adhere to those values.”
Anyone who wishes to profit from the market must acknowledge that the No. 1 rule is to listen to Beijing and to comply with its values. Only those investing in the Chinese market know whether the cost of complying with Beijing’s values is higher than their other expenses.
However, judging by the withdrawal of a number of US, European and Japanese companies from the market in the past few years, firms may have suffered more losses than gains from complying with these values.
For many years, the contradiction between Taiwan and China has always been in the conflict between market interests and Taiwanese values, which is a cause of disagreement between the blue and green camps.
Since Taiwanese businesspeople are obsessed with the Chinese market, this has allowed the Chinese government to weaponize it.
However, Taiwanese businesspeople should understand that the Chinese market belongs to the Chinese government. As such, the market is like a pie in the sky.
If the NBA case were to happen in Taiwan, or even if the association were to criticize Taiwan every day and no longer operate in the nation, its share in the Taiwanese market would likely remain unchanged, while Taiwanese would still be free to watch its games.
Yet in China, the NBA’s advertisements and broadcasts were canceled and those who breach the firewall to watch the games could have points deducted from their “social credit” rating.
After all its hard work building up its profile within the Chinese market, the NBA might go home empty-handed.
Some Taiwanese companies believe that since they possess control of core technology, they have nothing to be afraid of if Beijing were to suddenly become hostile or steal elements of their technology.
However, compulsory technology transfer and intellectual property rights were listed as main issues in the US-China trade talks, showing that the Chinese government is no pushover.
As more and more Taiwanese companies relocate from China, gradually both the grounds for the trade dispute and the blue-green standoff have started to crumble. Hopefully, the NBA commissioner’s remarks will lead to a review and consolidation of the blue and green camps’ divergent positions on doing business with China.
Chen Chi-yuan is an associate professor at Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS