China on Sunday announced the suspension of imports of wax apples and custard apples from Taiwan. It was to take effect the very next day.
This caused consternation in Taiwan because of how quickly the ban was to take effect and because many fruit farmers in southern Taiwan rely on the Chinese market, which previously took a 90 percent share of the nation’s wax apple and custard apple exports.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) condemned Beijing’s move, Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) called it unacceptable and the government informed China that it would take the matter to the WTO if it is not resolved by Thursday next week.
It was only in February that exports of Taiwanese pineapples were banned under similar circumstances, with neither prior warning nor adequate reasons given, and the move seemingly timed to make a political point.
Neither the government nor growers should be surprised by these import bans. Nor should they regard Beijing’s moves as being some kind of hissy fit or arbitrary in any way. This is simply the manner in which China under the Chinese Communist Party conducts international trade.
However, Beijing must be aware that its attempts to strong-arm other nations will discourage them from working with China and prompt a cost-benefit analysis of relying on a trade partner that weaponizes its trade policy to reward allies or punish perceived “enemies.” Nations might conclude that the only option is to look for trade partners other than China.
On an international scale and on the level of bilateral trade, the pitfalls of relying on China to be a part of important supply chains are being exposed.
Last year, apparently to punish Canberra for calling for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, Beijing announced huge tariff hikes, outright bans and other impediments to imports of many Australian products, including barley, beef, coal, copper, cotton, rock lobsters, sugar, timber, wine, wheat and wool.
Commentators at the time said that the Australian economy would be devastated by this massive drop in exports to its main trading partner.
However, it was not.
Australian producers sought out alternative markets. This was not always easy, entailing initial losses and lower prices as they had to compete with products in smaller markets, but coal export values recovered in six months. It was more difficult to secure new markets for lobster and timber, and wine typically requires more time to cultivate alternative markets, but the hit to the Australian economy was nowhere near as bad as some had feared.
For Taiwan, diversification and finding other markets is paramount. Moving away from the Chinese market, irrespective of the lure of proximity, size and a shared language, would protect Taiwan’s producers and exporters from similar shocks.
The government dealt with Beijing’s pineapple ban by investing NT$1 billion (US$35.99 million) to promote sales of the fruit in Taiwan and elsewhere overseas.
However, this was reacting to a perfectly predictable shock.
It makes sense to lay the foundations for more diversified, reliable markets in advance.
The Chinese market has the advantage of proximity, but so do many of the New Southbound Policy nations that the government is cultivating improved relations and exchanges with.
At this stage, the government griping about China’s inherent unreliability sounds more like a lack of good judgement by Taipei.
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS