US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room.
Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both.
In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion is crucial. If the tariffs evolve into a long-term war, inflation would likely follow, reducing public support and jeopardizing Trump’s prospects in next year’s midterm elections. Moreover, high reciprocal tariffs have already triggered a backlash from the EU and China, including selling off US Treasury bonds in retaliation. This would lower bond prices, sharply raise yields and significantly increase interest payments on US government debt.
Tariffs could also lead to inflation, making life more difficult for low and middle-income groups in the US — again, a political liability for Trump. If inflation takes hold, the US Federal Reserve would be slower to cut interest rates, and higher borrowing costs would increase pressure on car loans, student loans, credit cards and mortgages, eroding support among middle-class voters.
In China, although the government has claimed that Chinese can “eat dirt or grass,” and are not afraid of a prolonged trade war, the reality is more complex. After 30 years of economic prosperity, Chinese are used to relative affluence and would struggle with austerity. If the trade war halts China’s economic growth and drives up unemployment, the risk of civil unrest becomes a serious concern.
When Japan’s financial bubble burst in the 1990s, its per capita income was US$50,000, and its pension, insurance and healthcare systems were already well established. Despite entering a “lost” 30-year period, Japan maintained social cohesion. In contrast, China’s current per capita income is only US$13,000, and its social safety nets — retirement, healthcare and labor insurance — are still underdeveloped. If the economy stagnates, the potential for unrest should not be underestimated.
China is also facing a real-estate bubble and a local government debt crisis, while domestic consumption is weak. The nation has relied heavily on exports, particularly to the US. While direct exports to the US have declined in recent years, much of the trade has been rerouted through Southeast Asia, India and Mexico by manipulating the country of origin. If this loophole is closed, and domestic demand and exports shrink, China might fall into an even deeper economic crisis.
Given that the US and China have structural weaknesses, finding an off-ramp and resuming negotiations would benefit both parties by containing the trade war.
However, Trump’s tariff policies have clear targets, but lack strategic execution, making it difficult to force China to the negotiating table. Pressuring China involves more than encouraging high-tech companies to relocate to the US and create jobs. The more urgent issue is inflation in consumer goods — food, clothing, housing, transportation and entertainment. Without alternatives to Chinese products, the US risks seeing inflation that would undermine its ability to sustain a long-term trade war.
To fill this gap, the US needs help from Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. Taiwan has a comprehensive industrial supply chain and cost-reduction strategies; Japan has raw materials, advanced technologies and global supply coordination through its five major trading companies; South Korea’s strengths in consumer electronics, semiconductors and automobiles are also critical to US interests. A trilateral alliance with increased investment in the US could help replace Chinese goods and support reindustrialization of the US — key to weakening China’s competitive advantage.
If the US fails to leverage the strengths of these three allies and continues to do it alone, trade policy alone would not be enough to restrain China and could trap the US in a no-win situation.
If economic and trade strategies stall, Trump, as a businessman prioritizing the interests of the US, might resort to geopolitical maneuvers and the threat of military conflict to shore up the US dollar and US Treasury bonds. This could involve using flashpoints such as Israel and Iran, North and South Korea, or cross-strait tensions as bargaining chips, raising global political and economic risks — something Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and the world would rather avoid.
Therefore, based on shared interests, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea should proactively engage with the US to shape a comprehensive strategic framework. Doing so would not only help Trump address blind spots in his trade war, but also provide the three nations with sustainable economic pathways and political stability.
Wang Jiann-chyuan is vice president of the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS