Last month, a snap general election in the UK saw the ruling Conservative Party defeated and the Labour Party take power for the first time since 2010. With this change, there is now a fresh opportunity for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) under new leadership to chart a new course on relations with Taiwan that identifies and responds to the shifting cross-strait dynamics, balance of power and now almost fluid “cross-strait status quo.”
The Taiwan Policy Centre monitors all mentions of Taiwan in the UK parliament on the In Westminster section of our Web site. In November, then-shadow foreign secretary David Lammy asked the government what steps had the government taken to help prevent the possibility of conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
This was the reply: “The UK has a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. We consider the Taiwan issue one to be settled peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. China’s continued military flights near Taiwan are part of an ongoing pattern of escalatory activity and are not conducive to peace and stability. We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo, including increased Chinese assertiveness toward Taiwan.”
If the first two sentences of the answer came from an FCDO template used for many decades, the later comments showed some promising signs of recognizing that the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not Taiwan, is the source of provocation and tension across the Strait. Nevertheless, the Taiwan Policy Centre feels this does not go far enough. In our report “Respecting Taiwan,” we argued for the UK government to change its approach, updating a policy that has effectively been covered in diplomatic cobwebs since the UK first recognized the PRC in 1950.
We proposed a new statement to signal a more proactive and assertive UK foreign policy toward Taiwan: “The United Kingdom recognizes that Taiwan has a complex historical relationship with its neighbors, which has left a number of unresolved cultural, legal and constitutional legacies. The United Kingdom respects the right of the Taiwanese people under international law to self-determination and believes that the future of Taiwan is a matter for the Taiwanese people alone to decide without bribe, threat or coercion from any other party. The United Kingdom does not rule out providing assistance to Taiwan in the event that it is subject to an attempted invasion or other serious hostile assault. The nature of this assistance will be proportionate to the severity of the threat, and coordinated in conjunction with allied nations in the region. We expect all parties to uphold international law, abide by UNCLOS [UN Convention on the Law of the Sea] and other relevant treaties, and resolutely reject adventurism or the escalation of tensions.”
We now call upon the new foreign secretary, Lammy, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer to recognize that the so-called “status quo” has already been fundamentally altered by the PRC’s daily threatening incursions in Taiwan’s air defense identification zone and the “circling” of the country with military assets.
The PRC’s demand that officials working in Taiwan Representative Offices in Macau and Hong Kong now sign statements recognizing Taiwan as a part of the PRC are one more part of the PRC’s salami slicing of the status quo. It is time for the UK to evolve its position to match the new reality of Taiwan-China relations, bring it in line with international law, show respect and recognition of Taiwanese democracy, self-determination and sovereignty, and show the PRC that UK foreign policy is made in London, not Beijing.
Ben Goren is director of communications for the Taiwan Policy Centre and a long-term resident of Taiwan.
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