Trade
Supply chains critical to Taiwan’s security
Author: James Lee, UC San Diego
Tensions are rising in the Taiwan Strait. Chinese warplanes have been entering Taiwan’s air defence identification zone on an almost daily basis. Drawing on responses from foreign policy experts, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Preventive Priorities Survey has raised Taiwan to the level of a ‘Tier 1’ (high priority) contingency, with a recent report stating ‘Taiwan is the issue with the greatest potential to turn [US–China] competition into direct confrontation’.
The United States needs a viable long-term strategy for keeping the peace in the Taiwan Strait. US dependence on Taiwan and its microelectronics supply chain enhances deterrence without introducing the risks associated with strategic clarity.
China’s power is rising, but so is Taiwan’s. One company, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), holds 50 per cent of the world market share in contract chip-making. The technologies that will usher in the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution, from 5G smartphones to autonomous vehicles and high-performance computers, will need the chips that TSMC manufactures.
That has made the United States worried about what would happen if Taiwan were to fall under Chinese control. TSMC has responded to US concerns by agreeing to build a fabrication plant in Arizona for its cutting-edge five-nanometre process. But by the time the it starts production in 2024, five nanometres won’t be cutting-edge anymore. TSMC has already developed a three-nanometre process that is expected to start production this year. Apple is the first customer in line and many others are waiting.
Given how US companies and the US military depend on TSMC, it is natural for the United States to worry about the security of its microelectronics supply chains. What if the chips that go into 5G phones, cloud computing servers and autonomous vehicles and weapons are manufactured by a Taiwan that has been forcefully integrated into China?
While this scenario is alarming, it also holds the key to long-term US strategy in the Taiwan Strait. US dependence on Taiwan is not a strategic liability — it is a strategic asset.
Geoeconomic trends will enhance deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. As is well known, the United States has a long-standing policy of maintaining ‘strategic ambiguity’, declining to clearly state whether it would intervene in Taiwan’s defence in the event of a Chinese attack. Criticism of this policy has grown, but strategic clarity has its own risks: an unambiguous commitment to Taiwan’s defence would be interpreted by Beijing as a sign of eventual US support for Taiwan’s independence while also encouraging future Taiwanese governments to adopt provocative policies.
Beijing may not be eager for a war, but Beijing is not bluffing. Geoeconomic trends will enhance deterrence by raising the likelihood of US intervention in Taiwan’s defence without introducing the risks associated with strategic clarity. They will send a clear signal to Beijing without changing the status quo.
Critics may claim that any factor raising the likelihood of US intervention would introduce the same risks that a policy of strategic clarity would. But would China look at US dependence on TSMC and interpret it as a sign that the United States would eventually support Taiwan’s independence? Would a future Taiwanese government look at US dependence on TSMC and infer that the United States would give it cover for pushing the envelope on independence? The United States is already dependent on TSMC, and neither of those scenarios has unfolded.
Geoeconomic trends do not require the United States to adopt a new Taiwan policy. There is no need for the United States to announce a new strategic posture or a new position on Taiwan’s political status. The United States can simply maintain the one-China policy that it has maintained for decades and allow markets to do the work that political statements cannot.
There is evidence that US policy is already moving in this direction. Taiwanese Minister without Portfolio John Deng recently expressed optimism about the prospects for an eventual US–Taiwan free trade agreement. Earlier in February, the United States and Taiwan held their first bilateral economic dialogue under the Biden administration, during which the two sides discussed Taiwan’s role in global supply chains amid a dire shortage in high-end chips for the auto industry. These developments are consistent with the one-China policy, because it is flexible enough to allow the United States to…
Trade
Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
Fragmentation in global trade due to the lack of development in multilateral trade rules at the WTO has led to an increase in FTAs. The Appellate Body impasse has further exacerbated fragmentation, requiring a multilateral approach for reform.
Fragmentation in Global Trade
Fragmentation in global trade is not new. With the slow development of multilateral trade rules at the World Trade Organization (WTO), governments have turned to free trade agreements (FTAs). As of 2023, almost 600 bilateral and regional trade agreements have been notified to the WTO, leading to growing fragmentation in trade rules, business activities, and international relations. But until recently, trade dispute settlements have predominantly remained within the WTO.
Challenges with WTO Dispute Settlement
The demise of the Appellate Body increased fragmentation in both the interpretation and enforcement of trade law. A small number of WTO Members created the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as a temporary solution, but in its current form, it cannot properly address fragmentation. Since its creation in 2020, the MPIA has only attracted 26 parties, and its rulings have not been consistent with previous decisions made by the Appellate Body, rendering WTO case law increasingly fragmented.
The Path Forward for Global Trade
Maintaining the integrity and predictability of the global trading system while reducing fragmentation requires restoring the WTO’s authority. At the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in 2022, governments agreed to re-establish a functional dispute settlement system by 2024. Reaching a consensus will be difficult, and negotiations will take time. A critical mass-based, open plurilateral approach provides a viable alternative way to reform the appellate mechanism, as WTO Members are committed to reforming the dispute settlement system.
Source : Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
Trade
WTO ministerial trading in low expectations and high stakes
The WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference is set to focus on e-commerce transparency, investment facilitation, and admitting new members. However, progress may be hindered by disputes, especially regarding fisheries subsidies.
The World Trade Organisation’s 13th Ministerial Conference
The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) 13th Ministerial Conference is set to take place in Abu Dhabi on 26–29 February, with expectations of deals on electronic commerce transparency, investment facilitation for development, and the admission of Timor Leste and the Comoros as WTO members. Despite these positive developments, the expectations are relatively modest compared to promises made at the 12th Ministerial Conference, which included addressing fisheries subsidies and restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism by 2024.
Challenges in Dispute Settlement and Agricultural Trade Reform
However, challenges remain, especially in the deadlock of dispute settlement since December 2019 due to a US veto on the appointment of Appellate Body judges. Progress in restoring the dispute settlement mechanism has stalled, and discord continues regarding India’s grain stockholding policy as a potential illegal subsidy. Restoring a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism hinges on addressing US concerns about perceived bias against trade remedies in relation to China’s state subsidies.
Geopolitical Tensions and the Future of Trade Relations
The likelihood of reaching agreements amid geopolitical tensions between Western democracies and China appears slim, with issues surrounding subsidies and global supply chains causing rifts in trade relations. As nations focus on self-reliance within the global value chain, opportunities for trading face obstacles. Advocacy for open markets and addressing protectionist sentiments remains crucial for fostering resilience to external shocks and promoting economic growth.
Source : WTO ministerial trading in low expectations and high stakes
Trade
Getting Vietnam’s economic growth back on track
Vietnam’s economy grew 8% in 2022 but slowed in 2023 due to falling exports and delays in public investments. The economy’s future depends on structural reforms and reducing dependency on foreign investment.
Vietnam’s Economic Roller Coaster
After emerging from COVID-19 with an 8 per cent annual growth rate, Vietnam’s economy took a downturn in the first half of 2023. The drop was attributed to falling exports due to monetary tightening in developed countries and a slow post-pandemic recovery in China.
Trade Performance and Monetary Policy
Exports were down 12 per cent on-year, with the industrial production index showing negative growth early in 2023 but ended with an increase of approximately 1 per cent for the year. Monetary policy was loosened throughout the year, with bank credit growing by 13.5 per cent overall and 1.7 per cent in the last 20 days of 2023.
Challenges and Prospects
Vietnam’s economy suffered from delayed public investments, electricity shortages, and a declining domestic private sector in the last two years. Looking ahead to 2024, economic growth is expected to be in the range of 5.5–6 per cent, but the country faces uncertainties due to geopolitical tensions and global economic conditions.
- Guide for Foreign Residents: Obtaining a Certificate of No Criminal Record in China
- China Unveils Plan to Upgrade Industrial Equipment
- China deepens engagement with new Indonesian president as top diplomat visits Jakarta
- New Publication: A Guide for Foreign Investors on Navigating China’s New Company Law
- Lingang New Area in Shanghai Opens First Cross-Border Data Service Center to Streamline Data Export Process
- A Concise Guide to the Verification Letter of Invitation Requirement in the China Visa Process
