The decision by five members of Iran’s women’s national soccer team to withdraw their asylum application in Australia has drawn global attention.
Reports suggest that the captain’s mother was summoned and pressured by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, forcing her and other team members to reverse course. The incident reveals how authoritarian power operates. Under such regimes, borders do not define the limits of control — intimidation does.
The use of family members as leverage is a familiar tactic across authoritarian systems. When a regime cannot directly control people abroad, it turns to those still within reach — summoning relatives, issuing threats, confiscating property or applying social pressure to force compliance. The Iranian case is particularly chilling, because it lays bare a brutal truth: Under authoritarian rule, a person’s freedom is often built on the risk borne by their family. What appears to be a personal choice is a coerced political compromise between safety and kinship.
In the past few years, China has repeatedly been accused of harassing and intimidating dissidents overseas. Through diaspora organizations, student groups and digital networks, Beijing has built systems of monitoring and mobilization beyond its borders. Those who openly criticize the regime face phone harassment, online smear campaigns, surveillance, and — most tellingly — pressure exerted through family members back home. This strategy of using family as leverage mirrors, almost exactly, what the Iranian player experienced.
This carries direct implications for Taiwan. If public officials hold Chinese citizenship or maintain deep ties of dependence with the Chinese state, questions of loyalty become structural vulnerabilities.
The Chinese Communist Party’s ability to exert pressure on people beyond its borders is well documented. If officials entrusted with sensitive information are subject to such leverage, the potential consequences are difficult to overstate.
The Iranian case offers a clear window into the nature of authoritarian politics. These regimes do not simply seek to control their own populations; they extend intimidation far beyond their borders. As countries around the world begin to recognize and respond to such transnational coercion, Taiwan cannot afford complacency. Only by drawing firm institutional boundaries — bolstering national security frameworks and clarifying standards of political loyalty — can it ensure that its democratic system is not infiltrated, coerced or gradually eroded.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a legal professional.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS