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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers