The Philippine representative office in Taiwan has issued a statement about the Philippine government’s deportation of 14 Taiwanese fraud suspects to China. In response to the statement, which did not include an apology, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it would cancel preferential treatment allowing Filipino citizens holding visas to the US, Canada, the UK and Schengen countries to register online for visa-free entry to Taiwan, implement stricter screening of applications for the hiring of Philippine workers and recall Representative to Manila Donald Lee (李傳通).
The deportation of Taiwanese to China is unprecedented and has an impact on Taiwan because it ignores Taiwan’s existence as a country. It also implies that any citizen of the Republic of China (ROC) traveling abroad runs the risk of being deported to China for conflicts with Chinese or carrying out acts that have an impact on China.
This means that Taiwanese traveling abroad would not enjoy any of the protection afforded by Taiwanese law and their freedoms may be restricted by Chinese law as a result of Beijing’s pressure.
The government must exert all effort to ensure that Manila apologizes to avoid other -countries following suit. However, the government’s decisions have not been transparent and they have taken an odd direction.
First, I cannot understand why the government would cancel the preferential treatment of Filipinos holding North American and European visas. That move seems to me to have missed the target.
Although the Philippines is a relatively poor country, it also has a lot of wealthy people, and it is very likely that this is the kind of person who also holds a US or European visa. Visits to Taiwan by these people for tourism or business purposes should be facilitated rather than restricted — unless someone thinks we have too many tourists visiting Taiwan.
Second, every year about 77,000 Filipinos come to work in Taiwan. This is an area where sanctions would be more effective. The Council of Labor Affairs has said that in accordance with the nation’s foreign policy, it will raise the personnel level who screens and approves work applications for Filipinos to a deputy minister or higher.
The Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) specifies a maximum of four months for reviewing and approving applications. That in effect means that the arrival of such workers to Taiwan could be delayed by four months.
However, item 3-1 in Article 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act states that it does not apply to “acts in relation to matters concerning diplomacy.”
The current incident is a matter of diplomatic concern and therefore the time restraints stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply.
It should be possible to make a strong statement by suspending review of any applications from Filipino workers until Manila issues an apology, unless approval to hire a foreign worker has already been obtained, if a worker who is already in Taiwan is rehired or in emergency cases. This would demonstrate the seriousness of the matter and the government’s determination.
Finally, recalling Taipei’s envoy to the Philippines might seem like a forceful response, but a closer look shows it to be a weak response and one that might even send the wrong signals to Manila.
After the sinking of a Taiwanese fishing boat off the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) by a Japanese coast guard vessel in June 2008, Taiwan’s envoy to Japan was recalled on June 14, and by the 15th he had already returned to Taiwan. The foreign ministry announced that if no satisfactory answer was forthcoming, the envoy would not return to Japan. That is how you recall an envoy to display your dissatisfaction.
The ministry’s statement issued on Feb. 7 says the envoy will be recalled for consultations within a week, as if hoping that a delay will cause public anger to calm down, allowing things to return to normal. This kind of procrastination and accommodation could well cause Manila to think that Taipei is not taking the incident very seriously.
Taiwan’s sovereignty has been trampled on and this has set a precedent whereby any Taiwanese suspected of breaking the law in a foreign country could be judged according to Chinese law. This is a very serious blow to our national sovereignty, but to my amazement, the foreign ministry says the matter has not been discussed by the National Security Council.
Considering the government’s approach, how can it ever expect the Philippines to take Taiwan seriously?
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath