Japan’s and China’s top diplomats met on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum on July 26, hoping to increase exchanges that promote mutually beneficial relations. However, the Chinese ministry misquoted the Japanese official’s comments on the “one China” issue, further fueling tensions between two sides.
Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Yoko Kamikawa and her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi (王毅), had their first one-on-one talk in eight months on the sidelines of a gathering of foreign ministers in Laos to discuss issues between the two sides, including Japanese nationals being detained in China, Beijing’s bans on Japanese food imports and Japan’s semiconductor curbs.
After the meeting, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement saying “the Japanese foreign minister said that Japan’s adherence to the One China policy has not changed.”
That was different from the Japanese foreign ministry’s statement, which said that the Japanese minister expressed serious concern about the intensification of China’s military activities in areas surrounding Japan, and reiterated the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
Kamikawa said China’s statement did not cite her words at the meeting correctly and reiterated that Japan has not changed its stance on Taiwan, which has long been consistent with the “ Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s Republic of China” issued in 1972.
“The Government of the People’s Republic of China [PRC] reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully ‘understands’ and ‘respects’ this stand of the Government of the People’s Republic of China,” the document states.
Only 51 countries — not 180 as Beijing says — fully comply with China’s “one China principle,” while 16 “acknowledge” China’s claims, nine “recognize” the claims and some “respect” it, a study by National University of Singapore assistant professor Chong Ja Ian (莊嘉穎) found.
Meanwhile, 27 do not recognize the PRC as the sole legal government of China nor do they mention Taiwan’s sovereignty in official documents, the study showed.
China has long attempted to distort international perceptions of Taiwan through its cognitive and legal warfare. Its moves have also escalated and gotten more daring and arrogant. However, those could cause more nations and politicians to underline ambiguity and doubt about Beijing’s claims over Taiwan.
At least eight lawmakers from other countries, including Bolivia, Colombia, Slovakia, North Macedonia and Bosnia, said that they had been pressured by Chinese diplomats not to attend the annual meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) that was held in Taiwan on July 30.
China’s move was “unprecedented,” “massively overstepping” and “unacceptable,” IPAC said.
To oppose China’s acts of intimidation, about 50 parliamentarians from 23 countries and the European Parliament participating at this year’s summit officially invited Taiwan to be a member of the alliance and collectively voted to pass a “ Model Resolution on 2758” against China’s distortion of UN Resolution 2758, which merely said the PRC was the representative of China to the UN, but did not mention Taiwan, address its political status nor establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan.
The IPAC members — more than 250 cross-party members from 40 countries — said they would seek to pass the model resolution in their respective parliaments to redress China’s misinterpretation of the UN resolution and inappropriate linkage to its “one China principle.”
The diplomatic incidents caused by China have obviously dealt more blows to its campaign against Taiwan and Beijing has gotten itself into more predicaments internationally.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS