Debate over a possible visit of the Dalai Lama has arisen again in the Legislative Yuan. Just as the previous controversy in 2014 over the issue was exacerbated by a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator suggesting that the Dalai Lama’s arrival in Taiwan could be tantamount to returning to China, the recent debate was started by a KMT lawmaker, but this time, fortunately, it was with a saner attitude.
KMT Legislator Apollo Chen (陳學聖) launched a petition on Monday, urging President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to issue a visa to the Dalai Lama so he could visit before Ma’s presidential term ends on May 20.
Chen said that as Taiwan is home to many Tibetan Buddhists and the Dalai Lama is the undeniable symbol of the religion and culture, there is no reason to turn the 80-year-old away.
Chen emphasized that “the Dalai Lama is no longer the political leader of the Tibetan government-in-exile” to supposedly reinforce the appropriateness of inviting him in the face of expected protest from China.
“Do it before your presidential term ends” is another factor that could reduce the political risk it might cause, Chen said.
Chen’s mention of the “government-in-exile” might be a reminder to the administration of the fact that Tibetan government-in-exile Prime Minister Lobsang Sangay, among others, was denied a visa to attend the first Asia-Pacific Religious Freedom Forum in Taiwan last month.
The lawmaker is also right about the political timing for the KMT to win back some credit against the image of it being Beijing’s stooge and probably to save some political assets for its future role as an opposition party. After all, there is no doubt that president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) would be all the more troubled by the issue, as her administration’s hesitation and faintheartedness toward it would not only be disappointing, but also ironic considering the role her party had played in opposition to the KMT’s pro-China stance over the years.
Taiwan is not the first nation to have denied the religious leader a visa, as South Africa in 2014 refused him entry for the third time in five years. It is also true that Taiwan under the Ma administration once granted the Dalai Lama a visa in 2009 after he was invited to visit by the Democratic Progressive Party.
However, Taiwan’s relationship with China will always be affected by unwanted political insinuation and suspicion. Taiwan will always be in a more precarious position compared with other nations, which might also fear possible economic sanctions imposed by China, but are not overshadowed by Beijing’s territorial claims.
Allowing the Dalai Lama’s entry during a president’s lame-duck period could minimize political repercussions and possible retaliatory moves by China and at the same time re-establish Taiwan as a nation willing to stand firm for religious freedom.
The people could ask Ma to uphold the difference between “sovereignty” and “governing authority” he emphasizes whenever he speaks of the cross-strait “status quo,” meaning that the Republic of China (ROC) holds sovereignty over the whole of China, but currently only has governing power over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
Does the denial of entry to the Dalai Lama, implicitly following Beijing’s directive, signify that the ROC’s governing authority over Taiwan has also been compromised?
Premier Simon Chang (張善政) on Tuesday said that the government would accept the Dalai Lama’s visa application and refrain from impeding the application using “bizarre political reasons of any kind.”
It was a vain promise, as the government would not, if it has, admit that it used “bizarre political reasons” to block the Dalai Lama anyway.
Let him in, or do not. It is a simple yes-or-no question.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with