The first round of US-China trade talks are over. According to media reports, China has merely relaxed restrictions on foreign investment in financial institutions, and in exchange, the US is suspending raising tariffs on US$250 billion of Chinese imports.
Nevertheless, both sides said that “substantial progress” has been made in multiple areas.
It seems that a desire to strike a balance to the mutual benefit of both parties was the driver behind this “substantial progress,” while both sides are wrestling with each other to see who can hold out longer.
Due to the US-China trade dispute and Hong Kong’s “anti-extradition movement,” a number of US enterprises have been targeted by Beijing.
Meanwhile, the National Basketball Association (NBA), representing US soft power, has experienced first-hand the Chinese government’s ability to manipulate the private sector and appears to have taken orders without providing much objection.
The saga has highlighted an important message: The Chinese market belongs to the Chinese government, period. China can simply remove billboards and suspend broadcasts with a single order, as easily as “taking an orange from the table.”
As a result, a company’s performance in the Chinese market depends on what price it is willing to pay.
Eventually, NBA commissioner Adam Silver drew a red line on Oct. 8 by saying: “But if that’s the consequence of us adhering to our values, we still feel it’s critically important we adhere to those values.”
Anyone who wishes to profit from the market must acknowledge that the No. 1 rule is to listen to Beijing and to comply with its values. Only those investing in the Chinese market know whether the cost of complying with Beijing’s values is higher than their other expenses.
However, judging by the withdrawal of a number of US, European and Japanese companies from the market in the past few years, firms may have suffered more losses than gains from complying with these values.
For many years, the contradiction between Taiwan and China has always been in the conflict between market interests and Taiwanese values, which is a cause of disagreement between the blue and green camps.
Since Taiwanese businesspeople are obsessed with the Chinese market, this has allowed the Chinese government to weaponize it.
However, Taiwanese businesspeople should understand that the Chinese market belongs to the Chinese government. As such, the market is like a pie in the sky.
If the NBA case were to happen in Taiwan, or even if the association were to criticize Taiwan every day and no longer operate in the nation, its share in the Taiwanese market would likely remain unchanged, while Taiwanese would still be free to watch its games.
Yet in China, the NBA’s advertisements and broadcasts were canceled and those who breach the firewall to watch the games could have points deducted from their “social credit” rating.
After all its hard work building up its profile within the Chinese market, the NBA might go home empty-handed.
Some Taiwanese companies believe that since they possess control of core technology, they have nothing to be afraid of if Beijing were to suddenly become hostile or steal elements of their technology.
However, compulsory technology transfer and intellectual property rights were listed as main issues in the US-China trade talks, showing that the Chinese government is no pushover.
As more and more Taiwanese companies relocate from China, gradually both the grounds for the trade dispute and the blue-green standoff have started to crumble. Hopefully, the NBA commissioner’s remarks will lead to a review and consolidation of the blue and green camps’ divergent positions on doing business with China.
Chen Chi-yuan is an associate professor at Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS