**
Former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has issued a stark warning regarding a controversial new Chinese law that claims jurisdiction over individuals and organisations globally for actions deemed to undermine China’s “ethnic unity.” During her keynote address at the Ketagalan Forum in Taiwan, she likened the law’s rationale to the justifications used by Vladimir Putin prior to Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, urging democratic nations to take a firm stance against such overreach.
China’s Ethnic Unity Law: A Global Concern
The Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, which came into effect on July 1, has sparked alarm among international observers. It includes provisions that hold individuals and organisations outside China legally accountable for actions that “undermine ethnic unity and progress or create ethnic division.” Critics have highlighted the vagueness of these terms, raising concerns that they could be weaponised by Beijing to pursue dissidents or target individuals in countries like Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway province.
Freeland’s comments come at a time of increasing tension in the Taiwan Strait, where China has not ruled out the use of force to assert its claims over the self-governing island and its population of 24 million. Taiwanese officials have expressed that the law may serve as a pretext for Beijing to crack down on those it labels as separatists.
Historical Lessons from Ukraine
Freeland’s address drew on her extensive background, both as a journalist reporting on Ukraine’s tumultuous past and as a politician during its recent crises. She recalled how in 2021, Putin published an essay asserting that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people,” a narrative that preceded the Russian invasion by mere months. “The lesson of history is clear,” she asserted, emphasising that democracies must unequivocally reject any foreign laws that impose political loyalty based on ethnicity.
She warned that a failure to respond decisively to authoritarian encroachments could lead to dire consequences, drawing parallels with the West’s previous responses to Russian aggression. Freeland noted that past appeasement of Putin, particularly after Russia’s incursions into Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014, emboldened him to believe that he could act without significant opposition.
Taiwan’s Strategic Importance
In her address, Freeland also highlighted Taiwan’s critical role in the global semiconductor supply chain, likening its strategic importance to that of Ukraine’s burgeoning drone industry. She argued that Taiwan is not merely a dependent ally but a pivotal player in the efforts of democratic nations to reduce reliance on supply chains that traverse authoritarian regimes. Freeland urged support for Taiwan’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), reinforcing the notion that Taiwan’s economic contributions are vital for collective security.
Solidarity with Taiwan
Freeland’s remarks underscored the necessity for democratic nations to vocalise their support for Taiwan, especially in light of a potential military threat from China. “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,” she stated, reinforcing the imperative for solidarity with Taiwan and recognition of its democratic governance.
In response to Freeland’s comments, China’s embassy in Canada did not provide an immediate reaction, but state-run media were quick to dismiss the forum as a platform for “former and marginal foreign politicians” advocating for Taiwan independence.
Why it Matters
Freeland’s call to action resonates deeply in the current geopolitical climate, where authoritarianism is on the rise and democratic values are under threat. By drawing parallels between China’s legal framework and Russia’s military aggression, she highlights a critical issue: the need for a unified and robust response from democratic nations in the face of such challenges. The implications of failing to counter these aggressive legal assertions could be profound, not just for Taiwan, but for the global order that champions sovereignty and human rights.
