Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would render the company’s plants inoperable, and that such a war would produce “no winners.”
Not only would Taiwan’s economy be destroyed in a cross-strait conflict, but the impact “would go well beyond semiconductors, and would bring about the destruction of the world’s rules-based order and totally change the geopolitical landscape,” Liu said in the interview, according to the Central News Agency.
Bloomberg columnist Hal Brands wrote on June 24: “A major war over Taiwan could create global economic chaos that would make the mess produced by Russia’s war in Ukraine look minor by comparison, for reasons going far beyond the nation’s crucial position in semiconductor supply chains.”
Brands said that fighting in the region would disrupt critical shipping lanes, and would result in accelerated decoupling of the US and Chinese economies. This could be followed by blockades, sanctions and seizing of each other’s assets.
US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen on April 6 confirmed Brands’ speculation in part when she said that the US would use all of its sanctions tools against China should it attack Taiwan.
Such sanctions would appear to have the support of the US public. A recent survey showed that a majority favored providing support to Taiwan in the event of a cross-strait conflict, with even those wavering on US military involvement supporting the severing of commercial ties with China, Morning Consult Holdings reported on Friday last week.
Beijing might have thought that sanctions imposed following an attack would be limited in scope, given the interdependence of the world’s largest economies. However, sanctions on Russia by the US and Europe — which is weaning itself off Russian energy — have shown otherwise. The effect of those sanctions has made it less capable of helping China in such an event by making up for other markets.
Russia’s economy is predicted to shrink by 10 percent this year, and Moscow has defaulted on its foreign debt. The country is unable to buy semiconductors, key auto parts such as transmission boxes and airbags, and other items that Russia is not easily able to make itself, economist Rachel Ziemba and journalist Adrian Ma said in a June 29 interview on National Public Radio’s The Indicator.
That last point relates to Liu’s comments regarding TSMC. China makes microchips, but it still relies on imports for the most advanced chips from Taiwan and South Korea. Liu said an invasion of Taiwan would render TSMC unable to produce chips “because of the extreme sophistication of TSMC’s plants, which require a real-time connection with partners across the world on matters ranging from raw materials and chemicals to spare parts and software.”
South Korea would also likely cut off the chip supply to China to comply with global sanctions on Beijing. Cutting off China and Russia from advanced microchips would put these allies at a major technological disadvantage.
There is no question that China would face crippling sanctions as a response to attacking Taiwan. Its economy would be left in tatters, but it might even face military action from nations concerned about the strategic impact of an attack on Taiwan.
A delegation by former Japanese defense officials arrived on Wednesday last week for four days of talks with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and other senior officials to discuss Taiwan-Japan security exchanges. The talks clearly spooked officials in Beijing, as they had their propaganda mouthpiece, the Global Times, write an op-ed the day after the delegation’s arrival to claim that Japan had nefarious intentions.
China needs no reminding that an attempted invasion of Taiwan — even if successful — would come at an insurmountable cost.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS