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.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS