Apple warns suppliers to follow China rules on 'Taiwan' labeling (opens in new tab)

The Turkish airport in Turkish Cyprus is not recognized by Greek Cypiriot government, so if you do fly from Turkey to Cyprus, it is not considered a valid port of entry.

Thus you will get a stamp on a piece of paper, which you need to leave the country back to Turkey.

When traveling between the Turkish and Greek side of the island, the checkpoint guards will inspect your passport. As Greek Cyprus is part of the EU, EU laws require all EU Memberstates to allow free travel for any EU citizen. Likewise, due to agreements between the US, Cyprus and the EU, US citizens are too allowed free-travel. Citizens from other countries run the risk of being denied entry.

That passport is since expired (it only had 3 years on it, at time of stamping), and my new passport book will get me wherever I happen to go. The souvenir sits safely in my safe.

If the traveller happened to remove that piece of paper once the returned from Cuba, so be it.

I don't believe Israel had any issue with Emirates. It was Emirates blocking Israel (side note: this seems to have changed recently).

So, as long as you cover yourself with Emirates, you can execute that trade and not get hung up.

If, however, Israel were the one embargoing the export, you would get yourself in really deep shit.

Are you able to give any examples?

If I say, "I can't walk it the street naked", I'm expecting you to understand the underlying causes. I'm not expecting that I have to explain to you that, yes, nothing prevent me physically to walk in the street naked, but indeed, I chose every day not to do it because I don't want to pay the social and/or legal price for it.

In the same way, given that tensions in the Middle East are pretty famous and that political issues between Muslim & Jews have implications in international trades, I'm making the assumption readers understand what "cannot" means here.

I’m pretty confident that’s not what the UAE are doing, and don’t support them.

Compared to a country where companies literally buy congressman, and freely manipulate public opinion for the highest bidder?

We make decisions to curtail free speech everyday so how's this different?

No we don't. China may act peeved that foreign companies are virtue signalling, but they'd secretly relish at the opportunity of finding an excuse to boycott or ban these foreign products, so that their wealth stays circulating in their domestic economy. Look at what happened to Nike and H&M after they voiced concerns about Xinjiang. The CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies, but happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to them. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so.

The NBA and Blizzard made the correct decision to kowtow to China, economically as well as morally. Getting them kicked out of China does not help Hong Kong, but would threaten to free world as the balance of trade would make us even more beholden to China. In a complicated, globalized world, marginal thinking is the only option.

Let some other company fight the battle over what to put on the label.

When they started to support Taiwan in 1945, Chiang Kai-shek was a nationalist who imposed the martial law on Taiwan for 40 years (until the end of the 1980s!), waiting to strike back and regain "full control of China" (that's how One China principle was born, RPC has nothing to do with it! it was even in the ROC Constitution until 1992!)

Nixon changed everything when he visited mainland China and talked to Mao in 1972, that lead to the US-China trade agreement of 1979.

Until 1972 US had an agreement with Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan "temporary" government was the only recognized China, they were bound to protect it in case of attack, they supported his claims of reunification under his ruling and the UN seat for China was that of Taiwan, even though 99% of the people of China lived on mainland.

USA has been very ambiguous since then, on one side they acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China and does not challenge that position, on the other they are formally Taiwan allied, but there's no more an US embassy in Taipei and no Taiwanese embassy in Washington.

They even moved their "One China" capital from Taipei to Beijing.

Reminder: indigenous people of Taiwan are only 2% of the original population, the rest is 97% Han Chinese, so one China is quite an accurate description.

They only differ about the alliances they made, but the mythological example of freedom for Asian countries that Taiwan should be, is just a myth

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/na... (2016, long before the actual crisis)

Also, 2021 referendum on pork ban from USA shows that to keep having the support of USA, the ruling political party in Taiwan has to to satisfy their demands, even when it (potentially) poses a risk for the entire Taiwanese population.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-16/pork-refe...

USA are not there as mere observers, but as strongly interested party, with deep economical interests.

And to exploit cheap labor, that made the fortune of Apple with their iPhone.

The truth is that until not long ago, Taiwan had access to better weapons thanks to the USA that compensated for the smaller army. Their technological superiority combined with the threat of US navy showing up at the border kept China at bay and forced them to think twice before trying to retake Taiwan.

Now that's not true anymore.

Second, US's One China policy is only a word play. It acknowledges China's position regarding Taiwan but doesn't actually agree or disagree to it. That's why it still provide defense for Taiwan.

Third, your comment about public opinion is a complete nonsense. Taiwan is a democratic nation. If the majority prefers being a province of China, it would have already voted to do so. And the only reason people choose to "keep things as they are now" is to avoid provoking a war with China.

Either that or... are you talking about Taiwan and West Taiwan?

Mind that Taiwanese politics is not something I know a lot about, so I'm happy to be corrected.

Well, in the countries where it is good PR to do so. They tend not to show the same face worldwide, in countries where it would not be good PR.

And that moral stand is over the sovereignty of a country?

Even though the US government, with vastly more resources at its disposal and more ability to withstand the consequences of Chinese anger, does not make this stand?

And even if they did, that ethos does not give them carte blanch to pick and choose which laws they will adhere to.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-china-politics-identity-inde...

The situation is akin to someone held hostage at gunpoint telling you they’re fine.

Or is it because companies generally tend to follow the law of wherever they operate?

just keep posting "red waaaave" on your instagram account and "blue waaaave" on your twitter account so that everyone stays in their respective echo chamber, I think at least till 2025 would be good for me, I'll probably have cleared all my US earnings from taxes and left (w/ a different excuse) by then

Personally, I make a sincere effort to buy products that aren't made in China. I've been doing this for years but unfortunately avoiding things made in China is surprisingly difficult. When I end up buying products made in China, it isn't because of a lack of conviction, it is because there was no alternative I could find.

Would you apply that same standard and does it hold up to other scenarios?

If people were buying textile products from the slave trade, would you say "perhaps" when other (or the same) people shamed those industries for supporting slave labor?

If people were buying nuts and fruit from exploited migrant workers, would you still be able to shame the industries for better conditions or to hire minimal wage workers?

If people were buying cobalt or lithium mined from child slaves would you be able to shame those industries into sourcing minerals in a more humane way even though people buy EVs?

Or because people bought those products those companies/industries have immunity from criticism?

You cannot avoid products made in China because of the current status quo for the same reasons you couldn't avoid textiles made with slave cotton.

That doesn't mean you can't advocate change to the status quo.

They can have a referendum and see if they would like to lose their US citizenship Medicare/Social security.

If you had to guess, where do you expect TW/CH relations to be in 50 years? Do you still expect there to be disagreement between the two governments on respective borders and sovereignty or will they someday reach a fully amicable agreement?

Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade.

Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible.

And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it.

It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.

I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.

Why?

Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.

It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.

The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.

its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.

In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light.

So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later.

Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance.

Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim.

You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it.

Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand.

[1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.

You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?

Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.

I recall an appeasement policy in Europe didn’t work so great in the 1930s.

It amazes me how many people assume China has a strong military without doing the most basic research.

Ya, and if that happens, expect a draft. The US military is having difficulty finding volunteers. They'll need a whole lot of soldiers, sailors and marines if we went all out with China.

>It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters.

Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a political stunt is pretty disgusting. I'm done with all these war mongers.

I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.

Also, seems some people stole $6B from Chinese banks. One of the accused was allowed to flee to the US.

https://menafn.com/1104402647/China-Banking-Scandal-May-Invo...

Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare. A regime that is successfully able to maintain control of its territory and prevent its territory from being controlled by anyone else, for a n indefinite period of time, is by definition sovereign. That is what sovereignty is.

Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades. PRC can claim that they wish Taiwan was not sovereign, and this is very true, but until they successfully invade and take it over, Taiwan is still sovereign.

Just a little English vocabulary lesson!

See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty

‘Using the phrase "Made in Taiwan" on any import declaration forms, documents or cartons’

Ukraine is not a buffer state between two powers though.

Only Americans see it like that, after they regained independence from USSR.

Ukrainians are an east Slavic ethnic group native of Ukraine, separated from Russians, who descend from Finno-Ugric tribes.

Unlike 97% of Taiwanese people, who are Han Chinese like in mainland China.

Taiwan is more like Catalonia, where Catalans insist that they are different from Spaniards, but the conclusion is that Catalans including other Spaniards and even Portuguese are the same ethnic people

EDIT: immediate downvotes are probably from Russian zealots pretending that the World is indeed 100% Russian and should stay like that.

> the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy

Notice how you use the term "legally." You know that in fact, most nations around the world treat Taiwan as a de-facto independent nation. The USA's formal word on this is as follows: "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China"

Notice how it does _not_ claim that the _USA_ thinks there is only one China. Only that it recognizes PRC and Taiwan do.

> Apple need to operate in the boundary of law

Apple need operate in the boundary of PRC law if they want to keep their Chinese factories, workers and profits, and that's what this critique is all about. Nobody else cares if they have "made in Taiwan" on their parts or products. In fact, I'd prefer if they did as it's more transparent!

Whose law? Whose norms? Apple may be a global company but it uses American sovereignty, intellectual property law, and influence on other sovereign nations with respect to protecting its wealth, even if a good chunk of it is generated overseas.

Forgive me for being naive here but how does Taiwan buy weapons? Are all the arms manufacturers selling to them breaking the law?

> Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.

One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC; it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC), and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except perhaps on a hurried memorandum.

Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from using military force over Taiwan.)

But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm not aware of any principal of international law that is per se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written and normative international law; it just is what it is.

Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan, especially a permanent presence, then that would be another story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S. perspective, this is the no-go line.

If you want to talk about violating clearly written international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the envelop of what normative international law can speak to.

Taiwan differentiates by using “Republic of China”, RoC.

Still confusing, but technically different, purposely so.

There are all kinds of corporations. For example, the EFF is a corporation.

Apple's profit margins are so high that they'd probably still be positive even if they did this without raising prices at all. (Remember nobody's saying they should have to move manufacturing to the US. There are plenty of countries with low labor costs that are less evil than China.)

Taiwan is not a member, and been intentionally and continuously excluded.

Source: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3812381

The body was most certainly not neutral.

This is kind of silly to blame average people on the street for buying something cheaper that shows up in their local stores. This is all on the government (both parties), and large corporations for pushing this. People didn't "want" NAFTA, slave labor, etc.

Yes, but if any company has the money and the power to make those changes happen, it's Apple.