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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS