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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS