China last week said that it was investigating what it called Taiwan’s “trade barriers,” which supposedly affect more than 2,400 Chinese imports spanning from agricultural products and textiles to minerals and petrochemicals. It is an unusual move that many in Taiwan say is politically motivated while China maintains its own bans on a range of Taiwanese goods.
If China retaliates and implements export bans on similar Taiwanese goods, it would have a limited effect on the nation’s economy, the Ministry of Economic Affairs said. Taiwan’s exports of the 2,455 products under Chinese investigation totaled US$4.43 billion last year, accounting for just 0.9 percent of the nation’s total China-bound shipments. Because the probe could last until Jan. 12 next year — one day before Taiwan’s presidential election — there are concerns that China might use the trade barriers issue for political leverage.
The investigation could also be a precursor for China terminating the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement with Taiwan. Ending the cross-strait trade deal, introduced in 2010 to reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the two sides, would likely affect up to 10 percent of Taiwan’s exports to China, an estimate by the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research showed.
Trade barriers are restrictive measures imposed by a country on foreign goods. Any government regulations or policies that hinder international trade — such as tariffs, subsidies, quotas, and import and export licenses — could be considered trade barriers. In response, the affected party can initiate an investigation in an effort to rectify unequal trade conditions, and it should notify the affected parties of its intentions to initiate a probe.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs last week said it was not informed about the investigation before it was announced, and had only learned of it through the media, even though Taiwan and China are members of the WTO, which dictates that trade negotiations should be conducted in an equal and reciprocal manner.
Taiwan has placed import restrictions on Chinese goods determined to pose threats to national security or harm to domestic industries, based on the Regulations Governing Trade Between the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區貿易許可辦法), which took effect in 1993.
When Taiwan and China sought access to the WTO (Taiwan joined in 2002, a year after China), the two sides did consult on the terms of trade across the Taiwan Strait, but have yet to complete such negotiations. China’s latest move to address trade restrictions two decades after they were implemented shows no constructive contribution to bilateral trade, but raises questions about Beijing’s motives.
Moreover, China appears to be changing its attitude toward trade with Taiwan as it seeks to increase exports to boost a faltering economy affected by tech tensions with the US and global macroeconomic uncertainty. Because Beijing’s suspensions of Taiwanese goods are often arbitrary and abrupt, Taiwanese businesses should consider the grave risks of maintaining China as a major export market. Meanwhile, the government should make further efforts to help Taiwanese exporters tap into other markets to avoid overreliance on one market.
As it would take time for businesses to develop new foreign markets, the government should establish a task force to address China’s trade barriers investigation and offer guidance to domestic industries. It should also develop long-term plans to help transform and upgrade affected industries to enhance their global competitiveness, as opening up to the world is an unavoidable trend.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should