US Representative Ted Yoho on Tuesday last week called on US citizens to boycott Chinese products for human rights, citing Beijing’s oppression of Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan. In a House committee hearing commemorating International Human Rights Day, Yoho correctly pointed out that the oppression only went unanswered because of China’s economic dominance.
He called on the US public to pressure manufacturers to adopt an “ABC policy” by establishing production “anywhere but China,” and suggested that consumers buy Taiwanese instead of Chinese products.
In today’s world where most nations would readily submit to Beijing’s wishes in exchange for economic benefits, Yoho’s sobering call for a boycott of Chinese goods deserves high praise, even though it came somewhat late.
He noted that “the efficacy of such boycott movements in a globalized supply chain has been widely questioned.”
However, some people adopt such a defeatist attitude because the influence of the “red supply chain” has spread across the world.
Who allowed this to happen in the first place? The business owners who have, for decades, mindlessly invested capital and technological know-how in China, hoping to maximize their profits, and consumers who have so mindlessly purchased any Chinese product on the market that practically everything they use is made in China.
Fielding a question last year by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator William Tseng (曾銘宗) about China’s “31 measures” to entice Taiwanese, then-premier William Lai (賴清德) said: “Without Taiwan’s help over the past several decades, could China have become what it is today?” China’s economic development has benefited from Taiwanese capital, talent and technologies, Lai said, adding that he hoped Beijing would remember this while bullying Taiwan in plain view of the international community.
What Lai said could not have been more true: With a profit-oriented mindset, Taiwan has since the 1980s invested in China without restraint and consequently created a monster that it cannot contain, and now it is in danger of being devoured.
The global supply chain has been dominated by China only because we chose to allow it, but now we must choose otherwise. If people continue to buy Chinese goods in weary acceptance, thinking that this is global norm that cannot be changed, they would be nourishing a hegemonic communist state, emboldening it even further in its disregard for human rights, safe in the knowledge that it has the world at its feet with its economic clout.
This would form a vicious cycle: The problems detailed by Yoho would persist; Beijing’s leverage over Sri Lanka and African nations would likely increase; and China’s intimidation and bullying of Taiwan would undoubtedly become more blatant.
The global supply chain might be dominated by China, but it is not too late to change that. Elsewhere in the world, emerging manufacturing sectors, such as that of India, would be more than willing to secure investment deals from foreign businesses.
For any company that cares about human rights, decoupling from China is the sensible thing to do. For any Taiwanese company that does not want to risk having its technologies copied or provide Chinese with any job opportunities, pulling out of China would benefit Taiwan’s security.
While it remains to be seen whether US citizens would embrace Yoho’s proposition, it is imperative that Taiwanese who value the nation’s right to self-determination make boycotting Chinese goods a part of their everyday lives. Condemning Chinese bullying of Taiwan and rejecting Chinese attempts to annex the nation are ultimately superficial statements if, at the same time, Taiwan continues to contribute to China’s economic dominance.
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS