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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS