On Wednesday last week the European Parliament did something Beijing has spent decades trying to prevent: It read the documents. By 454 votes to 86, with 110 abstentions, members of the European Parliament adopted a recommendation to the European Council, the European Commission and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas that sets out what EU policy on China says and, more usefully, what it has never said.
Start with the phrase the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) most enjoys misquoting. The EU has a “one China policy,” which acknowledges Beijing’s claim to Taiwan without endorsing it, a distinction any 12-year-old grasps and the Chinese foreign ministry has failed to absorb in 50 years. The “one China principle,” under which Taiwan is already Chinese and merely awaits invasion, belongs to Beijing alone. The parliament notes that the EU has never signed on to that and that this still needs saying is the quiet triumph of Chinese diplomacy: repeat a falsehood in enough joint communiques and people begin apologizing for not believing it.
Then there is UN Resolution 2758. The 1971 General Assembly text decided who would hold China’s seat at the UN, and it says nothing about Taiwan or its sovereignty. Beijing wields it anyway, as a skeleton key to lock Taiwanese out of bodies whose business is health and aviation, forgetting that a virus does not check passports and a plane does not care which flag the controller salutes. The parliament rejects the distortion and the pressure on international organizations that enforces it. It also condemns transnational repression and the extraterritorial reach of Chinese law, which assumes that statutes travel with their citizens, and occasionally with other people’s, to whatever country they land in.
Add the language on forced labor in Xinjiang, repression in Tibet, China’s stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and resilience against espionage and hybrid threats, and the text reads less like diplomacy than a well-kept ledger of grievances, itemized and accurate, which in this field counts as a surprise.
A little sobriety is in order. A recommendation binds no one, and the council might nod gravely before returning to lunch. Several member states treat Beijing’s displeasure as weather to be managed with trade delegations and soft adjectives, and the 86 votes against and 110 abstentions suggest that some parliamentarians still mistake silence for prudence, usually until the next cyberattack or tariff retaliation corrects them.
Even so, the direction is correct. Taiwan has been asked for decades to be patient, flexible and creative about its own existence, so it is a relief to see Europe asked, for once, to be clear. The parliament opposes any change to the “status quo” by force or coercion, or against the will of the Taiwanese people, and it urges deeper cooperation on semiconductors and cybersecurity. None of this is radical. It is merely the absence of a lie.
Beijing will answer as it always does, with interference in internal affairs, the wounded feelings of 1.4 billion people and a stern spokesperson using the word “resolutely” at least twice. The facts will not move. The People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 and has never governed Taiwan for a single day, and a claim to own what you have never ruled is not a principle, but an ambition with a press office.
The time has come for democracies to stop negotiating the meaning of words and decline to repeat the CCP’s rhetoric. Strasbourg has made a start, and a modest one, but starts are where these things begin. Taipei should not thank it too effusively, since Europe has merely done its homework, and the point of homework is that someone eventually hands it in.
Clive Hazell is a Kaohsiung-based writer and educator.
The FBI on Sunday arrested Wanying “Heather” Chang (張婉瑩) on suspicion of surveiling the family of the son of President William Lai (賴清德) on behalf of China, an example of “transnational repression” to suppress dissent in Taiwan and abroad. Zhang, a 34-year old realtor in California, was arrested on charges of working as an unregistered agent for China. She and an accomplice were accused of taking photos and videos of Lai’s son and his family, and sending information about their whereabouts and license plates to Chinese officials. “The information could be used by China to gain leverage over the Taiwanese president
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
A few days ago, we left our breakfast midway to catch a glimpse of the fighter jets in formation. It was a spectacular sight. We knew it was part of practice drills for Double Ten National Day celebrations and reminded us of the Annual Republic day celebration in India. While channel surfing, I came across a news debate about immigration laws, where an academic asked a fellow panelist: “Why should we be interested in your point of view when you don’t even belong here?” That got me thinking. Was our enthusiasm about the upcoming Double Ten celebrations unwarranted? Was this
National Tsing Hua University (NTHU) president John Kao (高為元) was invited for a job interview in Hawaii just three days after being confirmed in May for a second term at NTHU. Academic and industrial leaders requested his resignation. In the US, university presidents serve at the pleasure of the university’s board of trustees or board of regents. Unless an employment contract explicitly protects them, they can be terminated at any time without cause under at-will employment doctrines. If the board finds out a president is interviewing elsewhere, it can legally terminate their presidency simply by citing a “loss of confidence” in their