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.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS