Stamp of approval?
The Chen Shui-bian administration has finally decided to go ahead and issue a new passport with the word 'Taiwan' in English on the cover, in addition to the words 'Republic of China'. The explanation, which is not unreasonable, is that there is a need to distinguish Taiwan travellers from those from the mainland, whose passports say 'People's Republic of China'.
Because the central government has been so successful in convincing the international community that there is only one China, travellers carrying a 'Republic of China' passport are often mistaken for mainland citizens. As is to be expected, the mainland suspects this is another move towards Taiwan independence by the Chen administration. Almost two years ago, when Taiwan first raised the possibility of changing its passport, by adding the words 'Issued in Taiwan' on the cover, the Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing responded by accusing the Chen administration of 'inching towards independence'.
To make matters worse, Mr Chen virtually confirmed this suspicion by publicly telling his supporters in January last year that the new passport was a 'gift' to those favouring Taiwan independence.
But the Taiwan government is in a real bind. The mainland has placed it in a no-win situation. It demands that Taiwan embrace the concept of 'one China' and warns Taiwan against supporting either 'two Chinas' or 'one China, one Taiwan'.
Of course, travellers from Taiwan have been using 'Republic of China' passports for more than half a century, beginning when most of the world recognised the government in Taipei as the legitimate government of all China. In the eyes of the mainland, this is the perpetuation of 'two Chinas' by Taiwan. But it seems that this is considered less objectionable than Taiwan independence.
If the words 'Republic of China' were dropped and replaced by either 'Taiwan' or 'Republic of Taiwan' on the passports, it would be a clear move towards Taiwan independence. Putting both 'Republic of China' and 'Taiwan' on the cover can be interpreted as a temporising move, emphasising practicality rather than ideology. Perhaps realising that its rhetoric is often counterproductive, the mainland has, for the time being, refrained from condemning the move in a high-profile manner. Instead, The People's Daily website merely carried a critical article that cited the views of Chinese academic experts, not officials. A similar article appeared on the front page of the China Daily, which carried the headline: 'Splittist move on passport to hurt relations.' Again, the article cited only academic experts. The newspaper acknowledged that, two years ago, the Chen administration wanted to add 'Issued in Taiwan' to passports but 'it was forced to shelve that plan after strong criticism from the Chinese mainland, which saw the proposal as an attempt to move the island towards independence'.
Of course, publishing the word 'Taiwan' alone is more provocative than the words 'Issued in Taiwan'. So, if the mainland wants credit for having aborted the original move, it must also accept responsibility for pushing the Chen administration to go further.
Interestingly, Mr Li described the latest passport move as only a minor change, reflecting a cautious, middle-of-the-road policy. And so, despite the strong headline, the substance of the article was not couched in very harsh terms. Perhaps the mainland now recognises that Taiwan has a practical need to change its passport. At the same time, it may feel obliged to go through the motions of warning against creeping independence. If so, it would show greater maturity and understanding on the mainland's part of the situation in Taiwan. Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator
