Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Department of Women’s Development director Lin Ching-yi (林靜儀) was recently invited to the UN to attend a meeting organized by the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Despite providing her invitation and non-governmental organization (NGO) accreditation, security refused Lin entry, saying: “A Taiwanese passport is not valid; it is policy.”
Lin’s passport was returned and she was unable to enter the venue as the representative of a Taiwanese NGO.
Taiwan is not a UN member nation. Its performance on women’s rights might be outstanding, but holding a Republic of China (ROC) passport, its representative is unable to set foot through the main door.
When this writer took part in the 2012 Asia electoral commission and electoral monitor summit, since the UN’s Asia-Pacific headquarters in Bangkok was chosen as the location for the meeting, it was only after a period of protracted negotiation that a consensus was reached. On the day of the meeting, passports were not checked, but we had to conceal any visible UN logos and symbols.
During this year’s elections in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan Department of Elections invited Taiwanese monitors to attend. However, following submission of documentation to the Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense, due to China’s “one China” policy, the Taiwanese monitoring team’s permit was canceled.
Whether at the UN, the APEC forum or other intergovernmental scenarios, Taiwan is accustomed to being suppressed; but now the nation is being fully suppressed at international meetings of NGOs, too, as well as at sporting events. The organizing committees usually request that the letters “PRC” (People’s Republic of China) are added after Taiwan’s name, or ask that Taiwan calls itself “Chinese Taipei,” or even “the separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.”
It is because of these degrading names and actions that younger people in Taiwan feel resentful toward China.
After next year’s elections, interaction between Taiwan and China will undoubtedly be put on hold while each side becomes accustomed to the other. Even if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retains power, it will need to differentiate itself from President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration by seeking to allay the public’s fears concerning Taiwan’s overly close relationship with China.
If, on the other hand, the DPP gains power, it must tackle the problems of “one China” and the so-called “1992 consensus.” It is also probable that discussions on trade and economic cooperation will need to be started afresh. Therefore, the potential for future conflict lies not in governmental matters, politics or discussions on trade and economic cooperation. Instead, the threat of conflict lies in skirmishes between international NGOs, which have the potential to flare up at any time.
From next year, the use of “Taiwan” when participating in international NGO events or when acting as an international observer will be the tipping point that will cause relations between the two sides to reach an impasse.
If Beijing allowed Taiwanese organizations and civic groups more space to breathe internationally, perhaps it would help reduce the public’s level of animosity toward China, especially in the case of the younger generation.
On the other hand, if China continues to restrict Taiwan’s space on the international stage, it will without doubt be throwing more oil onto the fire and result only in the two sides drifting further apart.
Chen Chien-fu is chairman of the Taiwan Network for Free Elections.
Translated by Edward Jones
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS