Have you ever counted how many of your personal belongings were made in China? If you have not, try doing so. You might be surprised by how much you are unknowingly paying Chinese companies.
The idea of boycotting Chinese products is bound to spark controversy. As China buys about 40 percent of Taiwan’s exports, even politicians who are most vocal about Taiwanese sovereignty might have reservations about a boycott, which would surely provoke a retaliation from Beijing if implemented at a national level.
However, that does not mean that Taiwanese should ditch the idea altogether or that it is not feasible — at least not on a personal level.
Before people start asking why they should boycott or, at the very least, avoid using Chinese products, they should ask: “Why not?”
Is there any sensible reason for Taiwanese to buy everything from China?
The desire of companies worldwide to cut costs and maximize profits has led to today’s global trade setting, in which nearly everything is made in China.
This has been going on for a while, so much so that China by 2013 had accumulated so much wealth from its “excess production” that it directed those resources to gaining hegemony over other nations in the shape of its international infrastructure project known as the Belt and Road Initiative.
China grants generous loans to economically weak countries that participate in the initiative, only to turn on them and demand a share of their natural wealth or infrastructure when they fail to repay their debt. The loot China has seized through the extortionist practice includes ports, natural resources and even political influence.
US companies that have followed US President Donald Trump’s “America first” policy by moving their production lines back to the US know that it is not wise to source all their raw materials and components from China.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation director-general Duncan Lewis has warned about the “insidious threat” Beijing poses to Australian universities and media with its attempts to shape public opinion and trumpet its views on global issues. Australians might want to start paying attention to how much Chinese products they are buying.
Taiwanese who support the nation’s right to self-determination and oppose unification with China should definitely boycott Chinese products whenever possible. Decrying Beijing’s bullying of Taiwan while paying for Chinese goods on a daily basis is pure hypocrisy. Every dollar paid to China is making it richer — and bolder in its bullying of other nations in the region.
The Democratic Progressive Party administration is faced with the inconvenient truth that its New Southbound Policy — in which trade plays a significant role — cannot achieve its full potential without a boycott of Chinese products.
Take clothing, for example. Some well-known brands have chosen third countries over China to build their production bases. Sweden’s H&M is one of them: It opened production lines in India and Bangladesh, instead of China.
Taiwanese can source practically anything they need from countries other than China — and at reasonable prices. They might also be pleasantly surprised that many of the products are made in countries targeted by the New Southbound Policy, such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.
They might be even more delighted to find that quite a few personal items are still being made in Taiwan and by choosing them over Chinese products, they would subtly but surely nurture local industries.
In international politics, greater economic power means greater political clout. China needs to be stripped of its title of being the world’s factory and then maybe it could start to learn some humility.
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