Speaking at an event in Taipei on Sunday to mark Europe Day — the signing of the Schuman Declaration on May 9, 1950, which paved the way for the European Steel and Coal Community, a precursor organization to the EU — Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) said Taiwan hopes the world will sanction China like it is sanctioning Russia for its war on Ukraine, if Beijing were to invade Taiwan. Wu added that it was important for Taiwan to stand with others in denouncing the invasion, and sanctioning Russia and Belarus.
This raises two questions: First, are the sanctions against Russia actually having the desired effect and, second, would US-led sanctions against China, the world’s second-largest economy, be feasible, either as a deterrent or as a post-invasion coercive measure?
The answer to the first question is that it is probably too early to tell. Initial reports from Russia painted a picture of bleak economic devastation with chilling economic statistics, such as the ruble diving 40 percent against the US dollar, and forecasts that Russia’s economy would contract by 12 percent.
However, the Russian ruble has staged a dramatic recovery and is trading where it was prior to the invasion. One reason for this is massive state intervention, as well as gaping holes in the sanctions regime.
The US and European nations displayed unprecedented unity in agreeing to remove Russia from the SWIFT international payments system and stop buying Russian gas. Working in parallel, a plethora of international corporations from McDonald’s to BP to Uniqlo have pulled out of the Russian market. Yet far from being an “international pariah,” Russia is still trading freely with many nations, including the powerhouse economies of India and China, bringing a steady flow of foreign currency into Russia.
Some European nations, including Germany and Hungary, have dragged their feet over energy sanctions and are still buying significant quantities of Russian oil and gas. Even worse, the sanctions regime has pushed up global commodity prices, doubling oil and gas revenues for Moscow, while causing severe inflation and a cost-of-living crisis in the West.
Could sanctions work against China, given that its economy dwarfs that of Russia and is so deeply integrated in the global economy? Beijing is sufficiently concerned to have called a crisis meeting between Chinese regulators and domestic and foreign banks to discuss how they could protect China’s overseas assets from US-led sanctions, and Beijing has ordered officials to conduct “stress tests” of its economy, the Financial Times has reported.
Despite the apparent concern in Beijing, sanctions against China would look very different. Edward Fishman, former adviser to the US Department of State on economic sanctions, believes sanctions against China would be more limited, and focus on “frontier technologies” and “next-generation infrastructure,” instead of generalized economic disruption.
Were Washington to explicitly threaten sanctions as a deterrent against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Beijing would be able to counter with threats of its own. China has built a monopoly over rare-earth metals and minerals — used in everything from smartphones to the US military’s F-35 stealth jet — and produces more than 90 percent of the supply of penicillin for the US market, to name just two countersanctions with serious teeth.
Threats and counterthreats of economic sanctions between the US and China might evolve into a new form of economic mutually assured self-destruction: The prospect would be so devastating to the entire global economic system that neither Washington nor Beijing would ever contemplate making the first move for fear of triggering an unstoppable cascade effect. Economic sanctions might have their place, but they are no substitute for robust military deterrence.
Two major Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-People’s Liberation Army (PLA) power demonstrations in November 2024 highlight the urgency for Taiwan to pursue a military buildup and deterrence agenda that can take back control of its destiny. First, the CCP-PLA’s planned future for Taiwan of war, bloody suppression, and use as a base for regional aggression was foreshadowed by the 9th and largest PLA-Russia Joint Bomber Exercise of Nov. 29 and 30. It was double that of previous bomber exercises, with both days featuring combined combat strike groups of PLA Air Force and Russian bombers escorted by PLAAF and Russian fighters, airborne early warning
On Tuesday, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) issued a statement criticizing Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a student from Shanghai’s Fudan University, saying she had offended the sensibilities of Taiwanese. It also called for the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation — established by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — which had organized the tour group, to remind group members to be careful with their statements. Song, during a visit to a baseball stadium in Taichung, said that the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team (中國台北隊) ... we wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and
For three years and three months, Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has remained stalled. On Nov. 29, members meeting in Vancouver agreed to establish a working group for Costa Rica’s entry — the fifth applicant in line — but not for Taiwan. As Taiwan’s prospects for CPTPP membership fade due to “politically sensitive issues,” what strategy should it adopt to overcome this politically motivated economic exclusion? The situation is not entirely dim; these challenges offer an opportunity to reimagine the export-driven country’s international trade strategy. Following the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
“Integrated Diplomacy” (總和外交) is the guiding principle of Taiwan’s current foreign policy. It seeks to mobilize technology, capital and talent for global outreach, strengthening Taiwan’s international connections. However, without a robust information security mechanism, such efforts risk being reduced to superficial courtesy calls. Security clearance serves as the “entrance examination results” for government agency personnel in sensitive positions, qualifying them to access sensitive information. Senior aides in the US Congress must also possess security clearance to assist lawmakers in handling classified budgets. However, security clearance is not an automatic right or a blanket necessity for accessing sensitive information. Access is granted only
RSS