Ever since US President Donald Trump announced that the US would levy tariffs on about US$60 billion worth of Chinese products, politicians, businesspeople, academics and the media in Taiwan have fretted that Taiwanese businesses would also be hit. This is not necessarily the case.
The concept informing Trump’s policy is simple: reciprocity. It is an idea that runs counter to the WTO’s concept of free trade.
The WTO’s ideal is that, after every country has abolished tariffs, each could make the product it can produce most efficiently for others on the global market. This rather naive ideal overlooks the fact that the natural and human resources that each country has are not mutually exclusive. That is, other nations also have the ability to produce the kind of products that another nation makes.
The market deregulation that the WTO demands has also put some nations at a disadvantage. Since they cannot make their own products as efficiently as other nations can, their industry is decimated by imports.
Meanwhile, relatively late developers are not given the opportunity to upgrade their production through technology transfers from more advanced nations by deregulating certain sectors within their domestic markets.
It is no surprise that the WTO is entangled in multilateral talks among nations over political and economic conflicts, as this underlying principle was flawed from the outset.
In the post-war period, Taiwanese trade relied on the labor market, such as with original equipment manufacturing, and the domestic market in exchange for foreign capital and technological transfers. This kind of exchange was true reciprocity. Taiwan’s manufacturing sector now enjoys many business opportunities in global markets, and it no longer has to rely on lower prices, as it can offer international customers added value.
Taiwan has not benefited much from the WTO over the past two decades and the majority of Taiwanese businesses still have to deal with high tariffs in other nations.
Meanwhile, nations and alliances like Japan, South Korea, China and the EU benefit from the WTO framework, as they are able to enter bilateral or multilateral talks with other nations and expand their international markets.
For the Trump administration, given what it sees as the considerable harm the WTO has done to US manufacturing and jobs, the introduction of tariffs to protect domestic industry and jobs is a reasonable response.
Trump has encouraged foreign companies, such as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co, and reduced taxes to bring US companies back home. These policies share an internal logic.
Over the past 20 years, under the influence of the WTO framework, Taiwan has forged a niche manufacturing model, giving the nation a unique competitiveness in the international market. Taiwanese companies are able to accept relatively small orders for precision manufacturing from different nations. In this, the nation is unrivaled. Is this new model not the best response to the Trump administration’s call for reciprocity in international trade?
In anticipation of what Taiwan’s involvement in the US’ Section 301 investigation of China’s unfair trade practices would mean for the nation’s industry over the next 15 years or so, this can be seen as a great opportunity for Taiwan to work toward a more reciprocal model of engagement with other nations.
Given the already good relations between Taiwan and the US, the government should capitalize on this opportunity to be the “most-favored political and economic partner” of other nations.
Huang Chin-yin is chairman of Tunghai University’s Department of Industrial Engineering and Enterprise Information.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS