On Nov. 10, US President Donald Trump ended his visit to China. He might have received a big “gift” of US$253.5 billion there, but as soon as he arrived in Da Nang, Vietnam, he said that the US would no longer tolerate dumping, currency manipulation, government subsidies and other chronic trade abuses, and that it is necessary to restore fair competition to distorted markets.
Trump is the first global leader to question globalization. Before the 1980s, nations had an unshakable belief in globalization. Trade volumes grew and poorer nations could also share in the wealth, thanks to investments by developed nations.
When China joined the free market, this belief in globalization as a trading system that would benefit the entire world began to falter, because China is an autocracy that used all of its might in the pursuit of global economic dominance.
The effectiveness of free trade, barter and division of labor can only come to fruition if global trade is in a general state of equilibrium.
Japan also experienced a gigantic trade surplus, but it still was not more than US$40 billion to US$50 billion, and following global condemnation, it allowed the yen to appreciate.
China’s approach has been different: To be able to enjoy the benefits of globalization, Beijing depreciated the yuan from 1.5 yuan to the US dollar in 1980 to 8.5 yuan in 1995, and it did so without experiencing coups, upheavals or inflation.
The move suppressed labor costs to levels between one-20th and one-40th of the cost in developed nations and China used that to attract foreign capital, steal technology and build its position as the world’s factory.
China’s trade surplus stands at US$500 billion annually, 10 times the size of Japan’s highest surplus. Can the global trade system really withstand the effects of a trade deficit of US$500 billion with China every year?
China’s exchange-rate manipulation and dumping have given it a foreign-exchange reserve of more than US$4 trillion. It uses this surplus to buy up advanced technology companies and concentrate the power of global economic growth in its hands, maintaining annual economic growth of 7 percent.
This is the result of sacrificing other nations’ economic growth.
Taiwan is the biggest victim of China’s policy. Taiwanese businesses are moving to China in droves, causing Chinese incomes and economic growth to rise, while Taiwanese incomes have dropped and economic growth has fallen to between 1 and 2 percent.
Japan and the US have also sacrificed growth. In the US, this has caused a backlash among blue-collar workers, resulting in Trump’s election as president.
Bizarrely, some academics and media outlets in Taiwan still see China as Taiwan’s savior and think of China’s US$30 billion trade deficit with Taiwan [Ministry of Finance data showed a trade deficit of US$63.03 billion for the first 10 months of the year] as a sign of goodwill.
However, this deficit is the result of Taiwanese businesses relocating their production to China, which is benefiting China and negatively affecting Taiwan.
Taking a pragmatic look at the situation, it is difficult to see businesses that have moved nearly all their production — perhaps about 80 percent — to China as Taiwanese businesses. From a fiscal and management point of view, the government should treat these “Taiwanese” businesses differently to bring operations for companies grounded in Taiwan back to reasonable levels.
At least Trump keeps saying that he will put the US first and restore fair competition to the distorted market.
Could Taiwan do the same? It is just a matter of determination.
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser and former managing director and chairman of First Commercial Bank.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS