Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) on Tuesday announced plans to expand production capacity in Tainan for its most advanced 3-nanometer chips. It also announced plans to build 2-nanometer plants in Hsinchu and Taichung, with operations scheduled to start in 2025.
TSMC chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) told the firm’s annual general meeting in Hsinchu that he hopes Taiwan’s semiconductor industry would have “a stabilizing effect on global geopolitical conflict.”
After all, China and the US “hope that TSMC is around,” Liu said.
TSMC is often touted as the biggest part of Taiwan’s “silicon shield” and among all the talk of impending doom due to a hypothesized invasion by China, investors and multinationals continue to demonstrate faith in Taiwan’s continued prosperity.
Nobody confused about the apparent contradiction between portents of Armageddon and investor tenacity would have been surprised by a report by the Nikkei Asia published on April 27 that said multinational corporations are including provisions in contracts covering a possible conflict in the Taiwan Strait, business disruptions caused by cross-strait tensions and US sanctions affecting assets in Taiwan if Washington were to say they were under Beijing’s control after an invasion.
Even the whiff of cross-strait tensions sets investors on edge, but the repercussions of actual hostilities breaking out, as Liu alluded to, are something that nobody wants, be they Taiwanese, the Chinese Communist Party or the international community.
The Global Economic Disruptions From a Taiwan Conflict report published by the Rhodium Group in December last year offered what it called a partial and conservative analysis of the outcome of a hypothetical conflict in the Taiwan Strait, which it said would start with “a blockade of Taiwan by China that halts all trade between Taiwan and the rest of the world.” A blockade would put “well over” US$2 trillion of annual economic activity at risk, even before military escalation or the imposition of international sanctions, the report said.
In addition to the economic shock within China, foreign investors dumping Chinese securities, the tightening of capital controls by Beijing to prevent investors from moving money offshore and the probable pause of financing for Belt and Road Initiative projects, by far the biggest effect would be from the strangled supply of chips from Taiwan, and the massive disruption and shortages it would bring to downstream industries, Rhodium said.
These are just predictions of economic disruptions. The clash between China and allies coming to Taiwan’s defense would be far worse, but awareness of the likely economic disruptions has rallied significant sections of the international community to voice support for Taiwan and stress the importance of maintaining peace.
This is part of a process Beijing refers to as the “internationalization” of the Taiwan issue. While internationalization is a catalyst for awareness of Taiwan’s plight and importance, it also increases tensions. Beijing is not happy with the internationalization of a relationship that it has worked so hard to portray as an “internal matter.”
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) believes that pandering to Beijing’s portrayal is the best way to ensure peace, while the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), especially under President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), believes that internationalization is the best way forward.
How will next year’s presidential election — presuming it is either a KMT or DPP victory — change the calculus? If Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) genuinely prefers a peaceful solution — to avoid the insanity of war and the massive, crippling disruptions it would bring — would he be willing to negotiate with a DPP government?
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS