Authorities on Monday cautioned China-based Taiwanese artists Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜) and Angela Chang (張韶涵) against taking part in China’s National Day celebrations on Wednesday.
The Mainland Affairs Council said it was investigating whether such behavior constitutes a contravention of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例).
Beijing might have wanted Taiwanese artists to perform at the event to promote its “one country, two systems” formula, which China intends to apply to Taiwan at some point, the council said.
Its intentions when engaging with Taiwanese artists are without a doubt part of its “united front” tactics, clearly being a national security concern. Some younger Taiwanese who are fans of these artists might not fully understand the implications of singing patriotic songs at a Chinese event and wonder whether China’s claims over Taiwan are valid. That is why a strong governmental response is so important — it would show that the artists’ behavior was not acceptable and cannot be a model for other artists to emulate.
However, there is an arguably even greater threat stemming from the large number of Taiwanese who visit, work and live in China, whose behavior while there is out of the public eye and goes unnoticed by Taiwanese authorities.
It should remain in the public consciousness that Taiwan is still technically at civil war with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — hostilities never formally ceased, and although Taiwanese authorities no longer have ambitions in China, the CCP’s ambitions in Taiwan have grown bolder in the past few years.
Beijing’s “united front” efforts include attempts to poach Taiwanese talent, which have become more aggressive since 2018 when China introduced its “31 incentives.” Given Taiwan’s aging population, a brain drain amounts to a national security threat, similar to that posed by China’s attempts to acquire national secrets by bribing current and former Taiwanese officials.
These are all good reasons to restrict the activity of Taiwanese in China.
A common argument by people with dubious interests in China is that Taiwan’s democratic government cannot prevent people engaging in activities across the Taiwan Strait. However, democratic governments often place restrictions on their citizens in the interest of the nation as a whole.
The US government has imposed restrictions on travel to Cuba since 1963. Today, Americans can visit Cuba only under very specific circumstances, such as to engage in humanitarian work, or to visit family — and Americans are not permitted to engage in business with Cuban government-run businesses or to stay at government-run hotels.
Taiwanese authorities recognize China as a threat — or, at least the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) does — but the DPP’s responses are reactive, rather than preventive. Why does it allow Taiwanese to freely engage in work and travel in China and only later raise questions about their activities there?
In China, all activities by foreigners — including Taiwanese — are closely monitored by the government. Foreigners cannot benefit from their activities in China unless the Chinese government also benefits from them. Therefore, how can any exchanges or activities by Taiwanese in China be considered non-political or non-threatening to Taiwan?
Rather than leaving it to artists to decide whether they will engage in pro-unification activities in China, why not remove the choice altogether and restrict travel to China by ordinary citizens?
The best way to protect Taiwanese interests would be to prevent engagements with China, pending either a formal armistice or Chinese recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty.
Former US president Jimmy Carter’s legacy regarding Taiwan is a complex tapestry woven with decisions that, while controversial, were instrumental in shaping the nation’s path and its enduring relationship with the US. As the world reflects on Carter’s life and his recent passing at the age of 100, his presidency marked a transformative era in Taiwan-US-China relations, particularly through the landmark decision in 1978 to formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, effectively derecognizing the Republic of China (ROC) based in Taiwan. That decision continues to influence geopolitical dynamics and Taiwan’s unique
Having enjoyed contributing regular essays to the Liberty Times and Taipei Times now for several years, I feel it is time to pull back. As some of my readers know, I have enjoyed a decades-long relationship with Taiwan. My most recent visit was just a few months ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a major conference in Taipei. Unfortunately, my trip intersected with Double Ten celebrations, so I missed the opportunity to call on friends in government, as well as colleagues in the new AIT building, that replaced the old Xin-yi Road complex. I have
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
After forcing through a slew of controversial amendments, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Tuesday last week rejected all seven Constiutional Court candidates nominated by President William Lai (賴清德), an event that triggered public concerns that it could lead to an unprecedented constitutional crisis and jeopardize Taiwan’s democracy. The opposition parties on Dec. 20 forced through three controversial amendments to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法). The amendment to tighten the recall process has been