On Monday, US President Donald Trump took to social media with a shocking statement in response to China’s 34 percent retaliatory tariffs on US imports, angrily condemning the move as going against his prior warnings. He threatened that if China did not withdraw its 34 percent counter-tariffs by the end of the day on Tuesday, the US would impose an additional 50 percent punitive tariff on Chinese imports starting from midnight on Wednesday. He also warned that “all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated!”
Trump’s statement illustrated that the US would no longer tolerate China’s unfair practices — prolonged abuse of tariffs, non-tariff barriers, illegal subsidies for businesses and long-term manipulation of exchange rates — and would respond strictly to its continuously escalating trade provocations. China’s Ministry of Commerce fired back in response, stating that China would “fight to the end.” Tariffs of a cumulative 104 percent took effect against China on Wednesday, which Trump increased to 125 percent later that day.
Upon closer inspection, Trump’s series of statements and actions are not solely focused on using tariffs as an economic tool, but instead reflect a strategic consideration to lure the snake out of its hole and strike it while its head is exposed. It is clear that he is attempting to use his harsh “reciprocal” tariff policy to progressively escalate the economic friction between the US and China into a full-scale strategic confrontation — even if it comes with the risk of pushing both sides to the brink of war.
In reality, after Trump announced the retaliatory tariffs, China’s pro-war factions immediately mocked him and the US. Chinese state-sponsored media outlets such as China Global Television Network and Xinhua released artificial intelligence-generated content, including a song titled The Tragedy of Tariffs and a video featuring a humanoid robot named “TARIFF.”
In the video, the robot criticizes the US for using tariffs as a weapon, warning that it would lead to a never-ending trade war that would bring suffering to all citizens. In the end, the robot — unable to fulfill its mission of protecting the best interests of humanity — self-destructs. The video uses the robot’s self-destruction to portray Trump’s trade policies as not only failing to protect US interests, but for potentially destroying global supply chains and ruining economic stability.
China responded to Trump’s “Liberation Day” with sarcasm and mockery, displaying an arrogant and conceited attitude. This behavior only furthered Trump’s anger and ignited a confrontational spark that led to this week’s sharp and sudden increase in US-China tensions.
As the world reels from the shock of this trade confrontation, pro-peace voices within China have been all but completely suppressed — only the hardline pro-war factions remain, manipulating and dominating the public discourse. After Trump initially announced the US would implement a 34 percent tariff on Chinese imports, China quickly retaliated with a 34 percent counter-tariff.
Soon after, a post on the WeChat messaging app written by someone called He Bin (賀濱) — purportedly an academic associated with the Public Policy Research Center at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), a major Chinese think tank — circulated online. The post said that implementing retaliatory tariffs would be a mistake on China’s part, likening it to a “you hit your wife, I’ll hit mine” mentality, arguing the move is akin to China following the US in shooting its own foot.
However, the post quickly attracted public criticism and was labelled as defeatist. On Sunday, after less than one week, CASS announced that the Public Policy Research Center with which He was affiliated would officially be abolished and its research projects transferred to CASS’ Institute of Economics, highlighting the Chinese Communist Party’s strict zero-tolerance policy toward internal dissent.
The particularly abnormal and volatile international situation calls for even more caution in handling the geopolitical risks across the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan is not only faced with the economic rivalry between two major world powers, but also with the accompanying hidden provocations that could affect the stability of the Taiwan Strait.
If the two behemoths on either side of Taiwan actually engage in armed conflict, it would be impossible for our nation to remain uninvolved. Whether it is disruptions to the global supply chain, fluctuations in financial markets or diplomatic pressure, all are challenges that Taiwan must cautiously address.
This latest tariff confrontation might just be the tip of the iceberg — the deeper issues are the complete reorganization of the global order and inevitable ideological conflicts. As dark clouds begin to gather, Taiwan must make hay while the sun still shines and prepare itself to weather the storm.
Liao Ming-hui is an assistant researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS