Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) on Tuesday thanked legislators in the US House of Representatives for passing the Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act. The bill would empower the US government to publish the “illicit” financial assets of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members and “restrict financial services for certain immediate family of such officials,” in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
US Representative French Hill, who introduced the bill last year, said the legislation would put public pressure on the CCP, and could act as a deterrent to Chinese aggression toward Taiwan.
Beijing “has failed to deliver a social safety net and families are battered by sinking real-estate debt,” Hill said. “Let these corrupt officials explain to ordinary Chinese citizens how they acquired their riches on a government salary.”
Hill’s support for Taiwan is very welcomed, but his estimate of the bill’s impact is overly optimistic. To start, where would the US Department of the Treasury publish the information? Access to international media in China is limited under the CCP’s censorship.
The social media and content platforms most widely used in the US, including Facebook, X, Instagram, Twitch and YouTube, are all blocked in China. Content posted to Chinese social media such as Sina Weibo, WeChat and Douyin is also monitored by the CCP, and even code language — using intentionally misspelled words and homophones — that users employ to get around restrictions is quickly picked up by censors and removed. Those who persist in posting banned subject matter find their accounts blocked, and in the most egregious cases are imprisoned.
However, that is a moot point, as Chinese citizens are largely aware of corruption in their government already, but are powerless to act on that information.
Even outside of China, CCP members do not even attempt to hide illegal or questionable behavior, as three examples from 2022 demonstrate. Chinese Ambassador to France Lu Shaye (盧沙野) said during an interview with French media on Aug. 3 that year that in the event of China’s annexation of Taiwan, Taiwanese would need to be “re-educated” to make them patriotic and accepting of unification.
This was followed by Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian (肖千) smiling on TV while discussing the arrest of Australian activist Drew Pavlou in the UK over false charges, from which he was later absolved. Then in October 2022, a Hong Kong dissident was dragged onto the grounds of the Chinese consulate in Manchester, England, and beaten.
These sorts of actions are evidence that CCP officials care little what anyone knows or thinks about them. Financial restrictions could have more impact as a deterrent, but they need to be comprehensive and must target the CCP as a whole, which is outside the scope of the Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act.
“This bill does not focus on retaliating against the Chinese government per se, but rather on individuals who are in that government,” Hill said.
It must be understood that in China there are no officials with individual interests, nor companies that can operate free from the CCP’s influence. In China, the party is everything.
To be effective, any legislation must threaten sanctions against China as a whole. Such legislation must entirely prohibit financial transactions, either direct or indirect, between tax-paying individuals or companies registered in the US and any entity in China.
Lessons from Russia show that to be effective, sanctions need to target trade funneled through third countries. US companies should also diversify their export partners and supply chains.
It is promising to see continued support for Taiwan’s defense from cross-party US officials, but legislation must promise truly impactful consequences to really serve as a deterrent to Chinese aggression.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS