In 2011, Taiwan and Hong Kong reached an agreement that the nation’s representative office in Hong Kong should be named the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, forgoing the sensitive terms “Taiwan” and “Republic of China (ROC)” to be able to exchange documents for the mutual benefit of Taiwan and Hong Kong, and to provide services to their citizens.
When the Hong Kong government made agreeing to the “one China” principle a condition for issuing work permits to Taiwanese staff at the office, it left the Mainland Affairs Council with no option but to refuse signing a document that belittles Taiwan’s national dignity.
The same thing has been going on in Hong Kong for a long time. Ever since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) took office, Hong Kong’s communist government has taken a zero-sum approach to handling matters. For example, civil servants — who take neutral stances in their jobs — must swear allegiance to the territory’s government or lose their jobs.
The same approach is used against Hong Kong’s democratic alliance, Next Media and even banks and businesses; everyone is forced to choose between totalitarianism and democracy. Choosing democracy, of course, results in being punished by the Chinese Communist Party.
Over the past few months, all demonstrations and gatherings have been banned in Hong Kong, and freedom of expression has been restricted. Apart from showing that Hong Kong has turned deeply “red” and that any talk of Hong Kong enjoying “a high degree of freedom” is empty, these pathological methods have also cut off all communication channels between civil society and the government, and blocked every outlet for public anger.
The situation can only become increasingly polarized. As Hong Kongers who have not been able to emigrate are forced to choose between a life of slavery and revolution, brutal police suppression of public discontent and complaints only causes that discontent and those complaints to boil over again. When that happens, protests are no longer peaceful.
A gray area can provide flexibility when handling problems, and a space for communication and mediation. China does not understand the importance of this gray area. It treats everything as black or white, and even extends this dualistic approach to diplomacy.
Media have reported that China, in complete disregard of diplomatic protocol and international rules, has listed 14 complaints against Australia and threatened to treat the country as an enemy. Left with only two options — silently accept humiliation or strike back — Australia, of course, chose to make the issue public and strike back together with the G7 member states.
If China continues to handle issues by blocking every channel of communication, as well as every other possibility, the only option left to the world will, in the end, be war. Is this really what China wants?
Hong Tsun-ming is the director of the Taiwan Statebuilding Party’s Yilan County Branch.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS