Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.”
Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support [for Taiwan].”
A few days after Tsai’s speech, Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Lars Lokke Rasmussen met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi (王毅), in Beijing, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between their countries.
Taiwan Corner is a Danish organization that, according to its Web site, “supports Taiwan’s democracy, Taiwan’s right to self-determination, and membership of all international organizations.” Its chairman, Michael Danielsen, has contributed many articles to the Taipei Times. He has an article published on today’s page in which he writes that, following a parliamentary consultation on May 6, the Danish government decided to make Taiwanese list “China” as their nationality on residency permits.
This marks a change in Danish government policy. Taiwanese in Denmark had since 1978 been able to list their nationality as Taiwanese. Danielsen said that this move is tantamount to saying that Taiwan is part of China, and brings the official government position closer to Beijing’s.
Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration Kaare Dybvad said that the change is consistent with Denmark’s “one China” policy. That position is questionable, and is out of sync with the rest of the EU’s “one China” policies.
The timeline and the apparent mixed messaging coming out of Copenhagen could lead to accusations of hypocrisy and cynicism about politicians. The most likely interpretation is that the decision was based primarily on pragmatism, but the outcome is nevertheless a blow to Taiwan’s ability to control the narrative about its sovereign status and push back against the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) distortions.
What is a pragmatic decision for the Danish government serves as a boost to the CCP’s attempts to further its lawfare distortions. China’s creation of ambiguity over Taiwan’s sovereign status allows it to say that cross-strait relations are a “domestic affair,” and to consolidate its “normfare” — the promotion of its favored interpretations of international norms.
Danielsen expressed his disappointment about the decision, and one can only imagine that this response would be shared by pro-Taiwan Danish parliamentarians such as Kjaersgaard.
The difference in responsibilities and constraints faced by governments and parliamentary groups affords the latter a strong position from which they could draw attention to complex issues such as Taiwan’s. This is where international, cross-party bodies, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), and countries’ Taiwan-friendly groups, such as the Taiwan-India Parliamentary Friendship Association, could make an impact.
The CCP’s reactions about groupings such as the IPAC and the World Parliamentarians’ Convention on Tibet — which was held in Tokyo last week and was attended by parliamentarians from 29 countries — shows that the CCP is aware of the challenge they present to its attempts to push its narrative of questionable claims over Taiwan and Tibet.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS