Since his return to the White House, US President Donald Trump has upended Washington’s trade policy. Trump forced Colombia to accept deported migrants by threatening a 25 percent tariff on all Colombian goods. He also announced a 25 percent additional tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico — which he later paused for 30 days following talks with Canadian and Mexican leaders — and a 10 percent additional tariff on imports from China.
Trump has said that he would raise tariffs on goods from the EU.
On Friday, at a meeting with visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, Trump said he was considering announcing reciprocal tariffs on many countries this week.
While Trump did not specify which countries would be targeted nor provide any details on reciprocal tariffs, his latest pronouncements suggest a shift from his campaign promise of imposing universal tariffs of 10 to 20 percent on all imports into the US.
It would also be a major escalation of his trade disputes with US trade partners if it triggers an across-the-board increase in retaliatory tariffs.
Thus far, Trump has cited concerns over illegal immigration, drug trafficking and trade deficits for his tariff threats, but his main purpose is to restore the US manufacturing industry and curb China’s technology development. It might also be a political tactic leveraging tariffs to make up for the shortfall in tax revenue due to his plans to cut domestic taxes.
The reciprocal tariffs idea is worth noting. Trump during his presidential campaign said that he would work with the US Congress to pass the US Reciprocal Trade Act, which would give him the authority to increase tariffs on imported goods to match the tariffs that a foreign country imposes on similar US goods.
Trump’s real target appears to be countries with significant trade surpluses with the US, as well as those that have particularly high tariff differentials with it. In either case, Taipei is likely to be one of Washington’s next targets.
US Department of Commerce data showed that the US trade deficit last year increased 17 percent to a record US$918 billion. China topped the list, with a trade surplus of US$361.03 billion, followed by Mexico with a record trade surplus of US$172 billion. Other countries that had significant trade surpluses with the US last year include Vietnam, Ireland, Germany, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Canada and Thailand.
Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro said that the targets for reciprocal tariffs are China and India, followed by the EU, Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam, with Japan and Malaysia being in the third tier of targets.
As Japan would soon begin importing a record amount of US liquefied natural gas to reduce the US trade deficit with Japan and address the reciprocal tariff threat, per the meeting between Ishiba and Trump, Taiwan could follow Tokyo’s example by importing more US energy. This could also help accelerate domestic energy transformation.
In the near term, engaging in intensive contacts with Trump administration officials and aligning with Trump’s “America First” agenda would give Taiwan an edge over its competitors. Longer term, boosting purchases of US weapons and agricultural products, and collaborating with the US in fields such as drones, semiconductors and artificial intelligence could demonstrate the nation’s determination to maintain a firm relationship with Washington.
It is undeniable that reciprocal tariffs would intensify trade tensions and weaken global trade and economic growth. They are bound to affect export-reliant Taiwan, but they also provide the country with an opportunity to re-examine its economic relations with the US, diversify its export markets and strengthen economic cooperation with Japan, South Korea, India, Southeast Asia and Europe to enhance supply chain resilience.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at