Five countries have this year canceled visa-free entry for Taiwanese due to pressure from China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Tuesday. The number of countries offering preferential visa treatment to holders of Taiwan passports dropped from 171 at the end of last year to 166 in April, the Central News Agency reported, citing data from a report by the National Audit Office. Giving examples of countries mentioned in the report, it said that Botswana had removed Taiwan from the drop-down menu on its e-visa application system, while Colombia last year canceled visa-free entry for Taiwan passport holders.
It cannot be overstated how unimportant these changes are for Taiwanese travelers in general. A survey conducted by Insight-Xplorer Ltd showed that in 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 69.1 percent of Taiwanese travelers visited countries in Northeast Asia other than China, 35.9 percent visited China (including Macau and Hong Kong) and 29 percent visited Southeast Asia. Only 2.6 percent visited South America and 0.9 percent visited Africa.
Ministry of Transportation and Communications statistics show that 4.9 million Taiwanese visited Japan that year, making it the top destination for local travelers, while 4 million visited China. Statistics for last year show that as travel recovered following the pandemic, the top destinations remained the same, with 4.23 million Taiwanese visiting Japan last year, and 1.76 million visiting China. Meanwhile, Botswana’s government data show that 1.18 million foreigners visited the African country last year, and nearly half of them were from other African countries.
So what does China hope to achieve by pressuring these countries into dropping visa-free travel for Taiwanese? Most likely, the measure is part of Beijing’s cognitive warfare efforts against Taiwan. China is running out of diplomatic allies to poach from Taiwan, so it is seeking to chip away at the nation’s international space in other ways. Botswana receives funding from China under the Belt and Road Initiative and has nothing to lose by canceling visa-free treatment for Taiwan, which was effectively nothing more than a symbolic policy to begin with. Colombia, while not a part of the Belt and Road Initiative, is a recipient of several Chinese investments and would be motivated to cancel agreements with Taiwan in favor of keeping those investments.
Elsewhere, Taiwan continues to enjoy favorable treatment. Taiwanese can travel visa-free to the US and the Schengen Area, and Taiwan last year signed the first agreement under the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st Century Trade. Trade between the EU and Taiwan increased by 42 percent between 2020 and last year, then-European Economic and Trade Office head Filip Grzegorzewski said last month. So, there is little for Taiwanese to be concerned about. They can still travel to 166 countries without a visa (barely fewer than the 186 countries US citizens can travel to visa-free), and Taiwan is seeing relations improve with the countries that matter most to it.
The proper framing of this issue is important for countering China’s attempts to damage public morale. When reporting on the Taiwan-related policies of countries that are relatively insignificant to Taiwan in terms of trade and tourism, the foreign ministry should emphasize that while it regrets such decisions, it is focused on the meaningful and mutually beneficial relations Taiwan is engaged in with the US, the EU, Japan and other important partners. As the US is very instrumental in many of those relations, it is important that Taiwan continues to work closely with the US and seek its support in pursuing international agreements.
Ultimately, the government should encourage the US to formally recognize Taiwan, which could spur recognition by other countries. Failing that, Taiwan would continue to pursue closer non-official arrangements with other partners.
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS