China on Sunday announced the suspension of imports of wax apples and custard apples from Taiwan. It was to take effect the very next day.
This caused consternation in Taiwan because of how quickly the ban was to take effect and because many fruit farmers in southern Taiwan rely on the Chinese market, which previously took a 90 percent share of the nation’s wax apple and custard apple exports.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) condemned Beijing’s move, Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) called it unacceptable and the government informed China that it would take the matter to the WTO if it is not resolved by Thursday next week.
It was only in February that exports of Taiwanese pineapples were banned under similar circumstances, with neither prior warning nor adequate reasons given, and the move seemingly timed to make a political point.
Neither the government nor growers should be surprised by these import bans. Nor should they regard Beijing’s moves as being some kind of hissy fit or arbitrary in any way. This is simply the manner in which China under the Chinese Communist Party conducts international trade.
However, Beijing must be aware that its attempts to strong-arm other nations will discourage them from working with China and prompt a cost-benefit analysis of relying on a trade partner that weaponizes its trade policy to reward allies or punish perceived “enemies.” Nations might conclude that the only option is to look for trade partners other than China.
On an international scale and on the level of bilateral trade, the pitfalls of relying on China to be a part of important supply chains are being exposed.
Last year, apparently to punish Canberra for calling for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, Beijing announced huge tariff hikes, outright bans and other impediments to imports of many Australian products, including barley, beef, coal, copper, cotton, rock lobsters, sugar, timber, wine, wheat and wool.
Commentators at the time said that the Australian economy would be devastated by this massive drop in exports to its main trading partner.
However, it was not.
Australian producers sought out alternative markets. This was not always easy, entailing initial losses and lower prices as they had to compete with products in smaller markets, but coal export values recovered in six months. It was more difficult to secure new markets for lobster and timber, and wine typically requires more time to cultivate alternative markets, but the hit to the Australian economy was nowhere near as bad as some had feared.
For Taiwan, diversification and finding other markets is paramount. Moving away from the Chinese market, irrespective of the lure of proximity, size and a shared language, would protect Taiwan’s producers and exporters from similar shocks.
The government dealt with Beijing’s pineapple ban by investing NT$1 billion (US$35.99 million) to promote sales of the fruit in Taiwan and elsewhere overseas.
However, this was reacting to a perfectly predictable shock.
It makes sense to lay the foundations for more diversified, reliable markets in advance.
The Chinese market has the advantage of proximity, but so do many of the New Southbound Policy nations that the government is cultivating improved relations and exchanges with.
At this stage, the government griping about China’s inherent unreliability sounds more like a lack of good judgement by Taipei.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Tuesday returned from her visit to the US, where she had met with several US senators and representatives, think tanks, and overseas Taiwanese and Chinese communities, espousing her vision of promoting cross-strait dialogue as a way to evade war. On Monday last week, she sat down with US academic Orville Schell and Asia Society Policy Institute distinguished fellow Daniel Russel. Russel is a seasoned diplomat who has served in positions related to East Asian and Indo-Pacific affairs. At the conclusion of the discussion, Russel employed his considerable diplomatic experience and knowledge
I arrived in Taiwan when I was 18, fresh out of high school and trying to navigate university life. Everything felt unfamiliar. My broken Mandarin quickly revealed what I already knew: I was not from here. When I told people I was from Indonesia, many told me that I did not look Indonesian. This caught me off guard, not because it was cruel, but because of how casually it was said. Sometimes it came with curiosity, sometimes surprise, occasionally admiration for my “fair skin.” More often than not, the people asking meant no harm. It is understandable. I look ethnically
Nearly three decades after the 1997 handover, Hong Kong has become a paradox: a place where financial dynamism coexists with political repression — a reality Taiwan cannot afford to ignore. Despite a sharp contraction of civic freedoms since 2020, Hong Kong remains a major global financial center. It has recently overtaken Switzerland as the world’s largest offshore wealth hub, supported by steady inflows of capital from China and across Asia. The territory continues to serve as a key intermediary linking Chinese firms, multinational investors and global markets. Institutional continuity has played a role. The Hong Kong dollar’s peg to the
In the aftermath of China’s expulsion of the New York Times correspondent Vivian Wang (王月眉), Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian (林劍) has publicly and explicitly articulated Beijing’s core thinking on the Taiwan issue. Chinese authorities accused the newspaper of promoting what they called “Taiwan independence fallacies,” and said that its description of Taiwan as a country amounts to a challenge to the “one China” principle. The significance of the incident goes beyond the reporting dispute and has given the international community a window into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attitude toward Taiwan. Lin, in a statement, said
RSS