The deportation dispute between Taiwan and the Philippines seems to go nowhere and to benefit no one.
I fully understand Taiwan’s anger and concern about the issue, mainly because of its possible bearing on sovereignty, and I also understand the reluctance of Manila to issue a formal apology. In both cases, it seems national dignity is at stake, but is it really so?
Manila’s actions can be interpreted as merely an extradition of foreigners to the country where they have “virtually” (though telecommunications) committed the crimes. This does not necessarily send any statement about “sovereignty,” but about judicial jurisdiction.
Recently, the UK decided to extradite Julian Assange, an Australian national and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, to Sweden for questioning over allegations of sexual assault. The extradition of the 14 Taiwanese to China does not necessarily mean that the Philippines is denying Taiwan’s jurisdiction over its citizens or have any bearing on Taiwan’s sovereignty, just as the UK by extraditing Assange does not put into question the sovereignty of Australia or its jurisdiction over its citizens.
The problem comes from some statements by -Philippine officials invoking the “one China” policy as a reason for the extradition and the dispute about the Taiwanese suspects being “undocumented.” In this regard, Manila should clarify that those statements do not represent its official position on the matter and state that the extradition does not have any bearing on the topic of sovereignty or on its “one China” policy. Manila should make the matter a merely judicial one. Regarding the “documentation” issue, the Philippine government can order a further investigation and punish any officials found to have committed errors.
Taiwan may loudly protest Manila’s decision on the matter and reassert its sovereignty, but it should not unconditionally demand a formal apology for the extradition, because a country has the right to extradite suspects to a country where they have committed crimes and telecommunication crimes affecting only Chinese can be considered a crime committed in China. Taipei can retaliate against the actions taken by the Philippines, but it should not turn this issue into a mortal combat.
I think that the Philippines’ handling of the case leaves much to be desired and that it has been a diplomatic fiasco. Manila should have also considered that in China, there is the possibility of extremely harsh punishments, which are not considered acceptable in many parts of the world. Some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, might receive capital punishment or face torture.
In summary, I hope Manila will do its best to clarify that this issue is strictly judicial, without bearing on sovereignty, and that Taipei does not turn this into a fight to the death.
Many misleading terms are commonly used when describing Taiwan-China relations. This should be rectified.
It is normal for Chinese on Hainan Island to call the rest of China the mainland or for Hawaiians to call the US’ 48 lower states as the mainland. It is abnormal for Taiwanese to call China the “mainland” unless Taiwan and China are the same country.
The terms “the other party” (對方) and “cross-strait” (兩岸) are ambiguous since there are so many parties and straits or shores in the world. “The other party” in Chinese can also mean that China is “the right party” and imply Taiwan is “the wrong party” (錯方).
If Taiwan and China were the same country, it would be unnecessary to talk about “unification,” China would not aim 2,000 missiles at Taiwan and there would be no Taiwanese generals spying for China. If President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) insists on applying the obsolete Constitution to both Taiwan and China, he should order Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) to step down and extend his presidential power to China.
On the other hand, it does not make sense to pursue the “independence” of Taiwan from China after Taiwan was ceded permanently from China in 1895. The Chinese Civil War was between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese communists and had nothing to do with Taiwanese. After the war, the defeated KMT merely escaped to Taiwan.
“Consensus” is something in common agreement. If the so-called “1992 consensus” has been so controversial, by definition, it is not a consensus at all.
Likewise, since “one China” has been debated for decades, there is no such thing as “one China” including Taiwan.
The number of Chinas, excluding Taiwan, is entirely an internal matter of China. Ma has changed the “status quo” of Taiwan so much that it is no longer a status quo.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented