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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission