Song Yihang
National University of Singapore
Faculty of Law

Lockdown and evacuation

In an effort to contain the COVID-19 outbreak at the end of January, the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) imposed sweeping lockdown measures in Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei Province. This occurred without much of a prior warning, leaving many foreigners stranded within the city. Many countries such as France, Japan and the United States, were able to subsequently negotiate with the Chinese government to evacuate their citizens from Wuhan through special charter flights.

Unfortunately, this was not the case for Taiwan, which does not enjoy the benefit of such diplomatic norms under the One-China Principle, where it is seen as a territory awaiting eventual “national reunification”. The present state of cross-strait relations implicates the evacuation of Taiwanese from Wuhan in two primary ways.

First, Beijing would not directly communicate with Taiwanese authorities regarding repatriation matters. Doing so would be equivalent to acknowledging the latter’s status as the PRC’s equal. Since Taiwan is seen as a province of China pursuant to the One-China Principle, all liaison between the two governments regarding the movement of ‘Chinese’ citizens are kept at the provincial level i.e. between Hubei and Taiwan. This arguably made it more challenging for effective cross-strait coordination and sharing of information, which hindered the entire evacuation process.

Second, Beijing would not allow the charter flights out of Wuhan to be conducted by Taiwanese airlines. If that was to be permitted, it could potentially allow the Taiwanese government and media to characterize the activity as an “evacuation of Taiwanese citizens (撤僑)” – a consular action that is only performed by sovereign states. To the PRC’s mind, Taiwan remains part of China’s territory and must never be accorded with treatment equivalent to that of an independent, foreign nation. Inevitably, this became a point of heated contention between the two governments in their subsequent negotiations.

The first charter flight and the cross-strait war of words

Therefore, the Mainland was initially opposed to any evacuation of Taiwanese from Wuhan. In order to break the stalemate, the Taiwan Kuomintang established a “Seven-man team (7人小组)” to facilitate further discussions regarding repatriation, across the Taiwan straits.

Despite its present status as an opposition political party in Taiwan’s legislature, the Kuomintang was the ruling party of Taiwan for more than 60 years. In recent years, the Kuomintang is increasingly seen as being Taiwan’s “pro-China party”, with their top executives sustaining close ties with the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, the “Seven-man team” assembled for the purposes of the repatriation negotiations included prominent politicians such as the acting Chairperson Lin Rong-te and Secretary-General William Tseng of the Kuomintang.

Twelve days after the city’s lockdown, the first charter flight, ferrying 247 people, departed Wuhan Tianhe Airport for Taipei. The flight was officially referred to as a “Lunar New Year’s holiday supplemental flight (春节加班机)” and was operated by China Eastern Airlines, a Mainland airline company. This initial arrangement appeared to be a success, with the Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council lauding the “smooth evacuation” as an “achievement through communication” and with “joint efforts from both sides of the Taiwan Straits”.

However, this cooperative atmosphere took a sharp turn when complications regarding the first charter flight began to emerge.

First, Taiwan was unable to accommodate a large number of returnees in the early stages of the pandemic. This logistical difficulty directly conflicted with the Mainland’s intention of sending close to 1,000 people back on consecutive flights, between 6 February and 8 February. Since Taiwan was unable to cope with the sheer number at such short notice, it produced a “priority list” of those on short business travels to Wuhan, those with chronic diseases or frequent medical care demands, and those with lower immunity, such as the young and elderly. However, the Mainland reportedly deviated from that list and included, inter alia, Mainland spouses of the Taiwanese (陸配) and businessmen with close ties to the Taiwan Affairs Office – a branch of the PRC State Council that is responsible for overseeing the Mainland’s policies towards the island.

The Mainland subsequently refuted these accusations and branded the Taiwanese authorities as “lacki6ng in morals and humanity”, since rejecting Mainland Spouses on the charter flight would necessarily result in the separation of these families.

Second, there were ample differences in medical standards adopted by both sides of the Taiwan Straits. For example, the two governments have different definitions as to what constitutes a fever: 37.1 °C for the Mainland, and 37.4 °C for Taiwan. Additionally, the Mainland did not require flight crew and passengers to be equipped with protective clothing, contrary to Taiwan’s insistence. This difference in standards directly resulted in the Taiwanese government’s circumspection after the emergence of a confirmed case of COVID-19 on the first charter flight.

Furthermore, due to the mysterious nature of COVID-19, there was growing fear amongst certain sections of the Taiwanese public about imported infections from Wuhan returnees. The existing discrimination in Taiwan against people from the Mainland may have also contributed to societal and political resistance against repatriation. This can be evinced by the temporary ban of non-citizen children of Taiwanese with Mainland Spouses from entering the island. In the words of the commander of Taiwan’s central pandemic authority Chen Shih-chung, “parents who failed to elect for Taiwanese citizenship for their offspring should bear the consequences of their decision”. Under Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which has been adopted by Taiwan in 2016, state parties are obligated to take appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination based on the status of their parents or family members. Therefore, the Taiwanese government’s temporary ban drew the ire of former Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, who condemned the ruling party for contravening fundamental human rights due to their political stance.

A compromised resolution, a joint effort

Nevertheless, amidst the war of words, relevant authorities from both sides of the Taiwan Straits clearly did not cease their efforts and negotiations continued. What both parties needed to do was to reconcile their respective bottom lines: each needed their own domestic airline companies to conduct the charter flights out of Wuhan.

The two governments eventually reached a compromise and on 10 March, a second charter flight ferried 361 Taiwanese out of Wuhan. In this instance, the evacuation was a joint effort by both the Mainland’s China Eastern Airlines and Taiwan’s China Airlines. Taiwan also deployed 13 medical staff onboard to ensure that the necessary safety measures are complied with. On 30 March, the third and final charter flight took place with similar arrangements.

Following the lifting of lockdown measures in Hubei Province, Taiwanese stranded in the Mainland were allowed to return to Taiwan independently. With that, the drawn-out journey home for many Taiwanese finally drew to a gradual closure.