China has begun issuing passports decorated with maps and images of scenic spots as an imaginative way of declaring sovereignty over various territories. The idea is that when other countries place their immigration stamps on these passport pages it will be a “stamp of approval” for China’s territorial claims. Perhaps only a country with China’s long history could come up with such an idea. It is also a very Chinese approach: Convince yourself that something is true, and it becomes so.
India and Vietnam also boast cultures extending back into the ancient past, and both have territorial disputes with China, so they immediately spotted the ruse and were quick to respond. Vietnam protested and has started issuing new visas to Chinese visitors, while putting a “canceled” stamp on the original. India also vehemently protested and is stamping Chinese visas with a map showing its own version of its border with China.
Will Taiwan respond in a similar fashion, or in some other way?
So far, the Mainland Affairs Council has protested, only for China to reiterate its position that “there is only one China.”
Meanwhile, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has scuttled for cover with nothing to say on the issue.
Actually there was no need for the council to protest, and neither does Taiwan have to follow Vietnam’s example. Rather, it should copy India and stamp China’s new passports with its own map. This would be the Republic of China (ROC) option.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) both trace their ancestry back to the Yellow Emperor (黃帝), so the ROC option would be to stake its territorial claim in the same way that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has done.
The council’s objections run counter to Ma’s political standpoints. Ma supports “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” (一中各表), so what is wrong with China expressing its interpretation of “one China” in its passports? Ma could do likewise and express the KMT’s interpretation of “one China” in two steps: First, do as India has done by stamping an ROC map on Chinese passports, and second, include scenic spots that fall within the ROC’s claimed territory in Taiwan’s own ROC passports.
Ma thinks that China is part of ROC territory, because the Constitution says so. That means that China, and even Mongolia, are the “mainland area of the ROC,” even if the ROC has no control over them.
Ma also thinks he is the president of the whole ROC. Therefore, the map should show the ROC’s “begonia-shaped” China, which is bigger than the PRC’s “rooster-shaped” China.
ROC passports could also include scenes of this greater China, like Beijing’s imperial Forbidden City — in anticipation of Ma’s future enthronement — and Kulun (庫倫) — the old name for Mongolia’s capital, Ulan Bator.
If the US can accept China’s new passports depicting the PRC’s interpretation of “one China,” it should also be able to accept the ROC’s version.
This would not just get China’s “stamp of approval” for the ROC’s interpretation of “one China,” but other countries’ approval as well. That would be much more useful for the ROC than the PRC, as it would put the ROC back on the world stage. Should Beijing protest, the issue could be handled by the UN or the International Court of Justice. Otherwise, China would be able to claim any territory it wanted just by including it in its passports — hardly a recipe for world peace.
If Ma does not have the guts to do this, then so much for his damned “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS