In 2011, Taiwan and Hong Kong reached an agreement that the nation’s representative office in Hong Kong should be named the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, forgoing the sensitive terms “Taiwan” and “Republic of China (ROC)” to be able to exchange documents for the mutual benefit of Taiwan and Hong Kong, and to provide services to their citizens.
When the Hong Kong government made agreeing to the “one China” principle a condition for issuing work permits to Taiwanese staff at the office, it left the Mainland Affairs Council with no option but to refuse signing a document that belittles Taiwan’s national dignity.
The same thing has been going on in Hong Kong for a long time. Ever since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took office, Hong Kong’s communist government has taken a zero-sum approach to handling matters. For example, civil servants — who take neutral stances in their jobs — must swear allegiance to the territory’s government or lose their jobs.
The same approach is used against Hong Kong’s democratic alliance, Next Media and even banks and businesses; everyone is forced to choose between totalitarianism and democracy. Choosing democracy, of course, results in being punished by the Chinese Communist Party.
Over the past few months, all demonstrations and gatherings have been banned in Hong Kong, and freedom of expression has been restricted. Apart from showing that Hong Kong has turned deeply “red” and that any talk of Hong Kong enjoying “a high degree of freedom” is empty, these pathological methods have also cut off all communication channels between civil society and the government, and blocked every outlet for public anger.
The situation can only become increasingly polarized. As Hong Kongers who have not been able to emigrate are forced to choose between a life of slavery and revolution, brutal police suppression of public discontent and complaints only causes that discontent and those complaints to boil over again. When that happens, protests are no longer peaceful.
A gray area can provide flexibility when handling problems, and a space for communication and mediation. China does not understand the importance of this gray area. It treats everything as black or white, and even extends this dualistic approach to diplomacy.
Media have reported that China, in complete disregard of diplomatic protocol and international rules, has listed 14 complaints against Australia and threatened to treat the country as an enemy. Left with only two options — silently accept humiliation or strike back — Australia, of course, chose to make the issue public and strike back together with the G7 member states.
If China continues to handle issues by blocking every channel of communication, as well as every other possibility, the only option left to the world will, in the end, be war. Is this really what China wants?
Hong Tsun-ming is the director of the Taiwan Statebuilding Party’s Yilan County Branch.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent