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 the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS