With military maneuvers and fierce rhetoric, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is seeking to intimidate Taiwan. At the same time, Beijing has redoubled its efforts to isolate Taiwan even further on the world stage by coercing other governments and businesses, as well as international culture and sports bodies, to comply with its “one China” principle.
Recently Panama, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador established diplomatic ties with the PRC — leaving only 17 nations that officially recognize the Taiwanese government.
However, a lack of diplomatic recognition need not mean diplomatic isolation. While most countries, including influential liberal democracies, have chosen to establish formal relations with Beijing, this has not precluded flexible interpretations of their “one China” policies.
Taiwan’s economic strengths and soft power pull have enticed other countries to trade with Taiwan and treat it as a constructive member of the international community, despite an increasingly powerful China making it more costly to do so.
Last month, following the severing of ties with El Salvador, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) reaffirmed that “Taiwan will not bow to pressure” and called on like-minded countries to join her in combating China’s reckless behavior.
Politicians in the US have stepped up in response by proposing the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act to deter other countries from switching allegiance. This follows another piece of US legislation, the Taiwan Travel Act, which aims to boost ties between the two nations by allowing high-profile visits.
US support, however precarious it might be with US President Donald Trump in the White House, is vital to deterring Chinese coercion. It is the only nation able to counter a Chinese attack from across the Taiwan Strait.
However, the task of giving Taiwan more international breathing space should be a responsibility of all liberal democracies.
On Sept. 8, the lead opinion piece in the Times of London called for “Solidarity with Taiwan.” It concluded by criticizing Britain and Japan for leaving the US to hold the line alone.
Of course, these countries over the years have pursued strategies to maintain relations with Taiwan, despite both being more vulnerable to Beijing’s threats than the US. These efforts should not be downplayed. However, given China’s continued isolation of Taiwan, what is required now is a stepping up of those efforts.
Calling out China’s tactic of pressuring companies to list Taiwan as a province of China would be a start. Forcing name changes is just one way in which Beijing has tried to erase Taiwan, and earlier this year Washington hit back by calling such tactics “Orwellian nonsense.”
In the past, Japan has challenged China’s name games. It did so in January last year, when it changed the name of its Interchange Association in Taiwan, which has offices in Taipei and Kaohsiung, to the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association.
Earlier this year, then-British minister of state for trade and investment Greg Hands took to Twitter to question British Airways’ labeling of Taipei as “Taiwan – China” rather than just Taiwan. Following further questioning from lawmakers, a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister reiterated the UK government’s policy of referring to Taiwan as “Taiwan” and advising others to do so.
Yet, despite this, the UK’s de facto embassy in Taiwan remains the British Office Taipei.
Moreover, British Airways continues to capitulate to China, so too does the Royal Mail, which lists Taiwan as a “Province of China.”
A small victory came during the Wimbledon tennis championship this summer when the BBC agreed to change the wording in a sports article from “Chinese Taipei” to Taiwan. However, given that Taiwanese players at the tournament have to compete under the “Chinese Taipei” moniker, as athletes from Taiwan would have to at the Olympics, this will be an ongoing problem.
The cancelation of the East Asian Youth Games, scheduled for next year in Taichung, because of Chinese political pressure is another disappointment, particularly given that during the vote fellow democracies Japan abstained, while South Korea sided with the PRC.
Multinational sports competitions, as well as cultural exchanges and academic forums, provide crucial opportunities for Taiwan to assert itself globally. They are the best chance Taiwan has to do this, as China is even more dogmatic in its efforts to exclude Taiwan from more political bodies, especially since Tsai came to power.
Here too, countries like Britain and Japan have played a constructive role. Japan has supported Taiwan’s application to become a member of APEC. Both countries have also supported Taiwan’s participation as an observer in the WHO. These efforts should be continued, as, even if unsuccessful, they show the world that Taiwan is not alone. Moreover, the importance of Taiwan’s involvement in these bodies should be stressed to other like-minded countries.
There are also future opportunities to aid Taiwan’s global presence. Taiwan has expressed interest in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The trade agreement’s current signatories, which include Japan, Australia, New Zealand and several democracies from the Americas, could assist Taiwan in achieving this goal.
Last year, Tsai also called for a free-trade or bilateral investment agreement with the UK. Both governments have identified numerous possibilities for further cooperation in the high-tech and green energy industries. As Britain prepares to leave the EU, the opportunities for closer trading relations appear on the horizon.
Already, to the delight of British Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox, Taiwan announced from last month onward that it would allow British pork imports for the first time.
Increased trade between Taiwan and its liberal democratic partners would be a win-win. It would also further opportunities for contact between government officials. Despite little contact between London and Taipei until the early 1990s, relations have steadily improved in recent years.
Over the past few years there have been several ministerial visits between the UK and Taiwan, as well as regular visits from parliamentary delegations. Likewise, in March last year, the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications sent Senior Vice Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications Jiro Akama to a tourism promotion event in Taiwan, making Akama the highest-level government representative to officially visit the nation since 1972. This highlights the importance of people-to-people ties for bilateral relations.
Tourism between Japan and Taiwan remains healthy, with Japan being one of the most popular travel destinations for Taiwanese and vice versa. With the resumption of direct flights between Britain and Taiwan in December last year, Taipei will hope that its success with Japan can be emulated.
All these exchanges demonstrate that Taiwan is not alone. Despite pressure from the PRC, fellow liberal democracies have sought close economic ties and people-to-people contact with Taiwan and have been willing to champion Taiwan’s place in international bodies.
However, as Beijing ramps up its efforts to isolate Tsai, liberal democracies like Britain and Japan must respond in kind by strengthening their ties with and support for Taiwan, as this effort cannot be left to the US alone.
Gray Sergeant is a postgraduate student in Chinese politics at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies and also works in human rights advocacy.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS