Deportation dispute
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.
FRANCISCO PEREZ
Taipei
Confusion abounds
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.
CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS