US President Donald Trump’s attempt to implement “reciprocal” tariffs to address the US trade deficit, alleviate fiscal burdens and promote reindustrialization is fundamentally sound and beneficial to the long-term development of the US economy. However, having the right direction without a clear execution strategy, and directly clashing with China in a head-on confrontation, would not effectively achieve the goal of curbing China’s economic rise.
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea have played crucial roles in China’s rapid economic ascent. Through Taiwan’s contract manufacturing and cost-reduction models, Japan’s supply of raw materials, and the introduction of Japanese and South Korean technologies, combined with China’s cheap land, labor, government resources, and capabilities in imitation and intellectual property theft, China has leapfrogged into the ranks of industrialized nations. It has flooded global markets with low-cost exports, impacting global industries and economic growth.
To solve the problem, one must address its root. If the US aims to curb China’s aggressive expansion in exports and industrial power, it needs the cooperation of Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. However, the relationships among these three are more competitive than cooperative, and opportunities for collaboration were originally slim. Yet, facing the shared crisis brought by Trump’s high tariffs, a new opportunity for cooperation arises.
Especially during this fleeting 90-day grace period, high tariffs on China could create trade barriers that suppress its exports. However, without alternative sources, essential goods such as raw materials, components and daily necessities must still be sourced from China. These tariffs would only raise import costs, rekindle inflation, spark public dissatisfaction and undermine the momentum for reform.
Trump’s tariff policies have become aggressive and indiscriminate, even toward allies, while overlooking the loyal partners nearby. A deeper analysis shows that the main alternatives to Chinese products, raw materials and components could be found in a strategic alliance between Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, which together form a robust industrial supply chain. Japan possesses raw materials and global sourcing capabilities through its major trading companies; South Korea excels in automobiles, semiconductors and consumer electronics; and Taiwan leads globally in textiles, automotive parts, machine tools, electronics and semiconductors, supported by highly clustered and cost-effective industries. These three, as a strategic alliance, could provide a viable substitute for Chinese manufacturing.
Due to political realities and industrial competition, a Taiwan-Japan-South Korea alliance has historically been difficult to establish. However, Trump’s tariffs create a shared incentive. Taiwan’s and South Korea’s semiconductor and electronics sectors, as well as Japan’s and South Korea’s automotive, machine tool and steel industries, are significantly affected, creating motivation for negotiations. Taiwan and Japan, with deeper ties, could initiate cooperation, with Japan subsequently persuading South Korea to join. Facing immense competitive pressure from China, South Korea is likely to show a strong willingness to participate. This triangular alliance could dismantle China’s industrial dominance across various sectors.
Given this context, Trump’s first strategic phase should focus on encouraging Taiwan, Japan and South Korea to invest in their specialized industries in the US. This should be accompanied by performance indicators, including specified investment amounts, job creation targets, skilled labor training quotas, and the establishment of technical schools. In exchange, the US could offer incentives such as special economic zones (with land price discounts, relaxed labor and union regulations), effectively advancing US reindustrialization. Meanwhile, levying high tariffs (50 to 60 percent) on China would reduce its export competitiveness and allow Taiwan-Japan-South Korea manufactured products in the US to replace cheap Chinese goods. This would lessen dependence on Chinese imports, bypass high tariffs and help the US avoid significant inflationary pressure.
On the other hand, localized production by Taiwan, Japan and South Korea would reduce their trade surpluses with the US, helping Trump fulfill his promise of job creation. To support this, the US government should impose lower tariffs on exports from these three countries, rewarding their cooperation and boosting their industrial competitiveness. For Taiwan, lower tariffs in exchange for US investment would preserve exports from traditional industries, and positively impact employment and wages.
A second strategic phase should involve imposing slightly higher tariffs on Southeast Asian countries to prevent China from evading US tariffs by relabeling its products as originating from ASEAN members. Simultaneously, moderate tariffs should be applied to allies such as the EU, Australia, New Zealand and India — enough to avoid trade retaliation while keeping them open as key US export markets.
With clear direction and concrete, feasible strategies, the US could fundamentally weaken China’s competitiveness and export strength across sectors such as consumer goods, technology and services. Localizing production within the US would provide effective substitutes for Chinese imports, mitigating inflation and generating significant job growth. More importantly, a decline in China’s export capacity for daily necessities would severely diminish its economic clout, reducing its ability to threaten US interests. Consequently, tensions across the Taiwan Strait and threats from North Korea could also fade.
To implement this grand strategy, the most urgent task is for Taiwan’s government to establish an interagency task force under the Executive Yuan. Within the 90-day buffer period, efforts should be made to coordinate with Japan and South Korea through all available channels, forming a consensus on a joint alliance. This alliance could engage in strategic dialogue with the Trump administration to resolve the challenges posed by reindustrialization and tariffs, and to collectively counter China’s economic threats.
Only through such a grand structure and strategy could we establish a model for cooperation among “non-red” supply chains and democratic allies.
Wang Jiann-chyuan is vice president of the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS