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.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS