In a striking condemnation of China’s recent legal developments, former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland has likened Beijing’s new law, which allows for the prosecution of individuals and organisations worldwide for actions deemed detrimental to its “ethnic unity”, to the justifications used by Vladimir Putin for his military aggression in Ukraine. Speaking at a security forum in Taiwan, Freeland urged democracies across the globe to take a firm stand against what she perceives as an alarming overreach of Chinese authority.
A Controversial Law
The Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, which came into effect on July 1, has raised significant concerns among international observers. Specifically, it empowers authorities to hold individuals and organisations outside China accountable for actions that “undermine ethnic unity and progress or create ethnic division.” Critics have pointed out the vague language of the law, which creates a wide interpretive scope for the Chinese government, potentially leading to arbitrary enforcement.
Freeland articulated her concerns while addressing the Ketagalan Forum, an event organised by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a local think tank. She drew a direct parallel between this law and the cultural and ethnic justifications that Russia has employed to erode the sovereignty of neighbouring countries, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Historical Context and Urgency
Reflecting on her experiences as a journalist during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and her political career amid Russia’s aggressive foreign policy, Freeland underscored the lessons learned from history: appeasing authoritarian regimes often leads to further incursions. She recalled Putin’s 2021 essay, in which he asserted that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people”, a narrative that foreshadowed the invasion that followed.
“The lesson of history is clear,” Freeland stated, emphasizing the necessity for democratic nations to openly reject foreign laws that impose political loyalties based on ethnicity. She insisted that such legislation should have “no force on our territories and no application to our citizens, whatever their ancestry, whatever their passport, wherever they or their parents were born.”
Taiwan’s Strategic Importance
Freeland also highlighted Taiwan’s critical role in global supply chains, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing, positioning it as a strategic asset similar to Ukraine’s drone industry. In her view, Taiwan must be seen as a crucial ally rather than a vulnerable state dependent on external support. She called for greater support for Taiwan’s aspirations to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a significant trade pact that includes Canada and other democratic nations.
The former deputy prime minister stressed that the stability of the Taiwan Strait hinges on a collective commitment from democratic allies to reject any attempts at altering the status quo. “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 asserted.
Reaction and Implications
China’s embassy in Canada has yet to respond to Freeland’s remarks, though the state-run Global Times dismissed her speech as a platform for “marginal foreign politicians” promoting “Taiwan independence.”
Freeland’s position, along with Canada’s previous comments on the Chinese law, indicates a growing concern among Western democracies regarding the implications of such legislation on international relations and human rights. Canada’s ambassador to the UN, Peter MacDougall, briefly addressed the issue during a session at the UN Human Rights Council, stating Ottawa’s apprehensions about the law and advocating for the rights of minorities.
Why it Matters
Freeland’s warning serves as a clarion call for democratic nations to remain vigilant against the encroachment of authoritarianism, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The interplay between China’s legal framework and Russia’s military ambitions illustrates a broader trend of using cultural narratives as pretexts for geopolitical aggression. As Taiwan continues to navigate its precarious position, the need for solidarity among democracies has never been more pressing. The stakes are high, not only for Taiwan but for the global order itself, as nations grapple with the implications of allowing authoritarian ideologies to shape international norms.