After Australia pushed for a WHO probe into the source of COVID-19 at the World Health Assembly in May, China responded by adding an 80.5 percent tariff — consisting of an anti-dumping tax rate of 73.6 percent and a countervailing subsidy margin of 6.9 percent — on Australian barley imports. Beijing also banned four Australian businesses from exporting beef to China, and said that it would ban Chinese tourists from visiting Australia and students from studying there. It also added anti-dumping taxes of 107.1 to 218.1 percent on Australian wine imports.
Beijing’s use of economic threats to bring its trading partners in line during disputes is a perfect example of a country run by digital tyranny dominating a huge market. The Australian government has said that it would bring the issue to the WTO for arbitration, but the question is whether that would solve anything.
The world has so far been unable to deal with the domination of China’s dictatorship, allowing it to wreak havoc on the international trade and politico-economic system. US President Donald Trump — seemingly the only person in the world to have clearly seen the problem with China’s bullying — is stepping down next month and the possibility that his successor could return to the hackneyed multilateral free-trade approach is worrying.
Some people might remember the US government’s 1984 antitrust lawsuit against AT&T, which resulted in the company being broken up into eight companies. This is what governments do to prevent companies from becoming so big that they can control their market, and create a situation in which industry and society no longer fulfill the requirements of a fair, reasonable and just society.
In the 1990s, when Microsoft’s Windows 95 operating system had a 90 percent share of the personal computer market, the problem reappeared.
In October, the US government filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, with the US House of Representatives’ Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law detailing in a 450-page report that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have monopolies in their respective markets.
Corporate monopolies are bad for consumers and they reduce competition. This is just as true in Taiwan as it is in other countries. In the 19th century and earlier, before the advent of aircraft and large steamships, there were no international or national monopolies in the modern sense due to mountains, oceans and other geographical features. Following the “integration” of the world’s economies, the domination of huge markets became a thorny issue.
Market domination is an issue that must be addressed head on, especially after China — with its market of 1.4 billion people and 9.6 million square kilometers of natural resources — joined the WTO and began smashing its rules, which had been keeping trade peaceful.
China began sucking in global capital like a black hole, while copying countries’ technology and intellectual property rights. It has turned itself into a type of huge “national trust,” or large grouping of business interests with significant market power.
This “China national trust,” a first in economic history, is feared by everyone. It differs from the typical trust, as China not only exerts economic domination, but also displays before the whole world its ambitions and threats.
If the free world does not pull itself together, this China national trust will ride roughshod over the world, forcing it to submit to its digital tyranny.
The world’s democracies must wake up and build an alliance big enough to “break up” this China national trust, creating international laws that can force it to fall in line, similar to how the US has used antitrust legislation to break up local monopolies.
This cannot happen overnight — it might take several years, or more than a decade. Still, the free world has the responsibility to make it happen.
Huang Tien-lin is a former advisory member of the National Security Council.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
RSS