Recent unconfirmed reports that Beijing had ordered the closure of a petrochemical plant run by Taiwan's Chi Mei (奇美) group in Jiangsu Province touched off a virtual cross-strait war. Even though the reports turned out to be nothing more than rumors, the damage had been done. Left exposed by the war of words were the political and economic bottom lines of the two sides. Once again the futility of trying to keep business separate from politics was clearly shown.
Shi Guangsheng (
His remarks highlighted Beijing's two-pronged strategy. The Taiwan government's strong response to the rumor proved a deterrent to any possible attempt by Beijing to impose sanctions on Chi Mei. However, despite Shi's nicely worded assurances to Taiwanese businesses, he minced no words in his criticism of Chi Mei. Even if Beijing takes no concrete steps against the company, local Chinese and foreign enterprises in China can plainly see which way Beijing's policy is blowing. They will consequently look at Chi Mei in a completely different light and perhaps even give it a wide berth. In a communist polity like China, local governments will naturally follow the will of their superiors and harass Chi Mei under the pretext of tax inspections, environmental issues and business regulations. Chi Mei's plant may have been spared closure, but days of misery surely lie ahead.
The immaturity of Taiwan's government was once again demonstrated by its flippant response to the rumors. Chi Mei's managers and the Beijing government denied the reports from the very beginning. Neither the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) nor the Straits Exchange Foundation was able to confirm the them. Nevertheless, both the Government Information Office and the MAC issued warnings that Taiwan might retaliate by delaying the "big three links" and the easing of the "no haste, be patient" policy. Those statements exposed Taiwan's bottom line. When the reports turned out to be untrue, the officials changed their stance and said the schedule for easing the no haste policy remains unchanged.
Once again the ease with which officials flip-flop on crucial issues raise a big question mark about the government's ability to resist pressure and to formulate stable policies. Trade and economic relations have been intensifying, and will continue to, between Taiwan and China. The Chi Mei row proved to be an imaginary war, but it showed that economic relations are a battlefield mined with political explosives. The business environment can be turned upside down at any time by an unforeseen political event on either side of the Taiwan Strait. This is a risk that anyone who wants to do business across the Strait must seriously consider.
Some people have advocated a common market between Taiwan, China and Hong Kong. But given the paper-thin trust between Taiwan and China -- as well as the political wranglings that break out more easily than teenage acne -- any attempt to separate business from politics or to promote political integration by means of economic integration is purely wishful thinking. The two sides might have to wait until their entries into the WTO to build any cross-strait economic and trade framework. Only the WTO umbrella can provide a solid foundation and reasonable protection for cross-strait economic relations.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS