In a surprising but encouraging turn of events, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Thursday that it will not accept the demand of Beijing to exclude the designation of "Taiwan" as the birthplace on the passports of any of its passport holders and to use the designation "China." The announcement came as a surprise because Beijing said that Canada will follow China in this regard, a fact which was confirmed by a spokesperson of the Canadian Passport Office only last week.
What prompted this sudden and abrupt change of attitude by Canada? In all likelihood, this had much to do with lobbying, protest and a letter-writing campaign to legislators by Canada's Taiwanese, Hong Kong and Macau immigrant communities. (China had imposed a similar restriction on the designation of "Hong Kong" and "Macau" as birthplaces on passport).
In the US, the Taiwanese community has gone through the same ordeal. As a result of intensive lobbying and protests by communities, the annual State Department Authorization Bill passed in 1994 includes a provision that allows for the designation of "Taiwan" as birthplace on passports. Since members of the US Senate and House of Representatives are generally sympathetic to the predicament of Taiwan, the likelihood of any amendment to this provision as a result of Chinese pressure is very slim.
Indeed, why should any self-respecting country roll over to such unreasonable demands? Matters concerning the issuance of passports and visas are entirely within the sovereign powers of each country. No other country has the right to meddle in them. Any country that allows such meddling by another country not only is acting disgracefully, but have in fact betrayed the trust of its people.
Moreover, if China refuses to issue visas to holders of passports that fail to comply with its requirement on birthplace designation, it would constitute a discrimination on the order of refusing someone to enter its borders on the basis of sex, religion, age and so on. Of course, China probably couldn't care less, since it has never even bothered to pretend to have any regard for human rights, as demonstrated by the recent controversy over the national security bill in Hong Kong.
While China has tried to use similar tactics before, it had acted mostly on an ad hoc basis with other countries. But things were different this time. On Wednesday, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs openly conceded that it has asked countries of the world to comply with its request, as if China was declaring an open war on the appearance of the word "Taiwan" in any way or capacity that might suggest it is not a Chinese province.
In all likelihood, the move was made in retaliation to the fact that Taiwan will begin to issue passports with the word "Taiwan" appearing on the cover starting in September.
One thing Beijing did not expect though is that, although it may have gotten away with this demand in the past when it was acting on a case-by-case basis bilaterally, once the demand is made in a collective and high-profile manner, the targets of its demand have to worry about things that probably and rightfully never crossed the authoritarian Beijing's mind as potential problems, such as popular will.
Therefore, it is important for the Taiwan government to realize that while it may be no match for the power of China, there is one thing that not even China can defeat and that is its citizenry and Chinese people across the world.
In the long run, this will certainly work to the advantage of Taiwan. In order to win over the popular will abroad, even more efforts must be made to increase Taiwan's visibility and promote Taiwan's cause.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS