Since January, it appears that Denmark has been recording Taiwanese in the country who need resident permits as “Chinese.” We in Taiwan Corner have also seen writing describing Taiwanese as “citizens of China with a Taiwanese passport.” In this way, Denmark’s “one China policy” seems to be moving closer to China’s “one China principle.” Even if there has been no actual policy movement, there has certainly been confusion. Denmark, having stumbled into this difficulty, must answer this important question.
The significance of addressing this issue has been underscored by the reaction from Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen. The minister responded after the Danish newspaper Berlingske, and people in Denmark and Taiwan all drew public attention to the registering of Taiwanese as Chinese.
Rasmussen said that he would investigate the reason for this and what other like-minded countries do. He would then see if an alternative solution could be found which is in line with Denmark’s “one China policy.”
Rasmussen’s response can be tentatively viewed as a positive sign, suggesting the potential reinstatement of designations that recognize Taiwanese residents in Denmark as such — an outcome favored by the Taiwanese community there.
One could fear that because Denmark has moved toward Beijing’s “one China principle,” it would be harder to quickly go back to registering Taiwanese as “Taiwanese” due to fear of a possible angry response from China.
It shows how easy it is for governments around the world to stumble into unnecessary controversy, from which they will find it difficult to roll back.
This leads to a discussion of other alternative solutions and unacceptable designations. These include the meaningless “Chinese Taipei,” which is used typically at sporting events, or even worse, “Taiwan, China” or “Taiwan, province of China.” Another possibility is to not list any nationality at all for Taiwanese, leaving a blank and undetermined space.
All this is speculation, of course, but it is worrying that the Danish foreign ministry’s Web site says that in China, Denmark has representative offices in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Taipei. Rasmussen said, according to Berlingske newspaper, that the decision to register Taiwanese as Chinese was not decided by his ministry. However, it must have been set by officials somewhere in the Danish government system, and we can assume that the text of its official Web site was decided by the Danish foreign ministry.
The pretext for registering Taiwanese as “Chinese” appears to be that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under international law. However, Denmark allows persons from Palestine to be registered with the birthplace and designation “Palestine” following a law from late 2021, even though Denmark does not recognize Palestine.
The question that remains unanswered is what the precise reason was for changing the registration policy for Taiwanese — a decision affecting 24 million people’s nationality and angering many Taiwanese in Denmark. An impact analysis seems to be missing here. Did they think such a change would be uncontroversial and not merit proper review?
Taiwan has been garnering substantial international support, being recognized as a vibrant democracy facing threats from China and possessing considerable economic significance globally.
Meanwhile, Denmark’s preoccupation with the classification of Taiwan diverts from potentially more productive engagements, such as fosteringexpanding relations with Taiwan.
The current geopolitical situation in the world demands a better use of our time.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS