Former US president Donald Trump’s comments that Taiwan hollowed out the US semiconductor industry are incorrect. That misunderstanding could impact the future of one of the world’s most important relationships and end up aiding China at a time it is working hard to push its own tech sector to catch up.
“Taiwan took our chip business from us,” the returnee US presidential contender told Bloomberg Businessweek in an interview published this week.
The remarks came after the Republican nominee was asked whether he would defend Taiwan against China. It is not the first time he has said this about the nation’s chip sector, but comes amid heightened military, trade and technology rivalry between the two superpowers.
In truth, Taiwan accounts for less than a quarter of the global semiconductor market, trailing the US, but has more than a 90 percent share in the fabrication of the most advanced chips.
Right now, the global semiconductor space ought to be celebrating a boom driven by skyrocketing demand for artificial intelligence (AI).
Netherlands-based ASML Holding NV, maker of the world’s most-important semiconductor manufacturing equipment, on Wednesday reported bookings for new machines that surpassed estimates by almost 30 percent. On Thursday, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), which controls more than 90 percent of leading-edge production capacity, lifted its revenue outlook for the year.
Instead of rising in recent days, shares of both companies dropped. In addition to Trump’s comment, investors are worried about the possibility of tighter regulations on China from the current administration of US President Joe Biden.
The White House is considering the imposition of the foreign direct product rule on the chip sector, which would apply to foreign-made products that use even a tiny amount of US technology, Bloomberg News reported. Such a move would extend an existing series of restrictions aimed at limiting China’s technological advance.
Trump’s broader view of the Taiwan-US relationship, though, could be far more damaging in the long run than another round of export curbs. In his defense, the belief that Taipei took from the US is a common misperception, but the former president happens to be the loudest voice and might soon be back in the White House to act on it.
In fact, the seed of Taiwan’s technological rise was planted by US foreign policy dating back to 1950, before semiconductors were invented. Then-US president Harry Truman directed his administration to pump money into the nation’s economy.
The US was also there at the birth of Taiwan’s chip sector. Radio Corporation of America in 1976 agreed to license its semiconductor technology to Taiwan, for a fee. United Microelectronics Corp (UMC) came from this program and was one of the first companies globally to make its factories available to external clients who needed chips made-to-order.
A decade later, Morris Chang (張忠謀), a US citizen and former senior executive at Texas Instruments Inc, founded TSMC. It was the first to only make chips for external clients. Intel Corp was among the earliest customers.
Since then, the Taiwan-US technology relationship has been one of symbiosis and codependence. In the 1990s, when fledgling US chip designers could not find a local factory to make their products, TSMC and UMC were on hand to help. Qualcomm Inc, Nvidia Corp and Xilinx Inc, giants of the US semiconductor industry, would not exist today if not for the Taiwanese.
In the past 20 years, as US firms dropped the ball on technological advancement and capacity expansion, Taiwanese companies have put up the money to research and develop new processes and bet more than US$250 billion on the factories needed to churn out US-designed chips.
At the same time, Chinese companies, the US’ true rivals, have been accused of stealing technology from Taiwanese and US businesses to aid Beijing’s technological development.
If not for the risks taken by Taiwanese enterprises and cooperation — instead of unbridled competition — with US companies, Qualcomm and Broadcom Inc could not have dominated the global market for communications chips. Nvidia, Intel and Advanced Micro Devices Inc would not be ahead of China in the AI chip race.
To view Taiwan-US economic history as anything but mutually beneficial risks fracturing one of the world’s most important industrial relationships, opening the door for China to take advantage of an unnecessary fissure. Instead, the White House, no matter who occupies it, needs to understand that Taipei is not a rival; it is one of the biggest cheerleaders for US technology leadership.
Tim Culpan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology in Asia. Previously, he was a technology reporter for Bloomberg News.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)