Former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has raised alarm over China’s new law granting the government the authority to prosecute individuals and organisations globally for actions perceived to undermine its “ethnic unity.” Speaking at a security forum in Taiwan, she drew unsettling parallels between this legislation and the justifications offered by Vladimir Putin for his military invasion of Ukraine in 2022, urging democratic nations to mount a strong response.
The Law’s Implications
The controversial Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, which came into effect on July 1, permits the Chinese government to hold entities outside its borders accountable for activities that it interprets as detrimental to its ethnic cohesion. Critics have expressed concern about the law’s vague language, which lacks clear definitions, leaving it open to broad interpretation by Beijing. Freeland’s remarks highlight the potential for this legislation to serve as a legal pretext for targeting individuals in Taiwan who are perceived as separatists.
Freeland’s keynote address at the Ketagalan Forum, organised by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a local think tank, underscored the gravity of the situation. She stated, “Article 63 is particularly sinister for me, given its dark kinship with Russia’s malign use of linguistic, cultural, and ethnic ties to justify illegal encroachment on the sovereignty of its neighbours, including the bloody full-scale invasion of Ukraine.”
Historical Echoes
Freeland, who has a long-standing connection to Ukraine—having covered its struggles as a journalist during the Soviet Union’s collapse and serving in government during Russia’s invasion—warned that the lessons from Ukraine are stark. She cited Putin’s 2021 essay, which argued that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” as a precursor to military aggression. “The lesson of history is clear,” she remarked, asserting that democracies must not shy away from condemning such laws. “We must state plainly that a foreign law assigning political loyalty on the basis of ethnicity has no force on our territories and no application to our citizens, whatever their ancestry or wherever they were born.”
In this context, Freeland’s emphasis on the need for a united front among democratic nations is crucial. She pointed out that the West’s failure to adequately respond to Russia’s earlier aggressions, such as the invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014, has emboldened Putin’s expansionist ambitions.
Taiwan’s Strategic Importance
Freeland also highlighted Taiwan’s pivotal role in global supply chains, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing. She compared Taiwan’s strategic relevance to that of Ukraine’s burgeoning drone industry, arguing that Taiwan can be an indispensable ally to democracies rather than a mere dependent. She strongly advocated for support of Taiwan’s ambitions to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, emphasising that democratic nations must reduce their reliance on supply chains entwined with authoritarian regimes.
“Taiwan’s dominance in semiconductor manufacturing gives it strategic leverage,” she explained. “The peace of the Strait of Taiwan will be kept by the plainness with which the world’s democracies say in advance that we will not accept that peace being broken.”
The Global Response
In light of these developments, Canada’s responses thus far have been somewhat muted. A brief mention at the United Nations Human Rights Council by Canada’s ambassador, Peter MacDougall, expressed concern about the implications of the ethnic unity law, urging respect for minority rights. Yet, Freeland’s call for a more robust and unified stance against authoritarianism is a clear signal that the time for passive diplomacy may have passed.
China’s embassy in Canada has not responded to Freeland’s comments, but the state-run Global Times has dismissed the Ketagalan Forum as a platform for marginal figures advocating for “Taiwan independence.”
Why it Matters
Freeland’s warnings about China’s ethnic unity law resonate beyond mere rhetoric; they encapsulate a critical juncture in international relations where democratic nations must confront authoritarianism head-on. Failure to do so risks emboldening aggressive policies that threaten not only regional stability in East Asia but also the very principles of sovereignty and self-determination. As China tightens its grip on Taiwan and asserts its global ambitions, the responses from democratic governments will be crucial in shaping the geopolitical landscape for years to come.
