Taiwan retaliates against countries that have changed its name in official systems, but analysts and lawmakers warn measures could backfire
Taiwan has pushed back against a growing number of foreign governments that label it part of China in their internal systems. But questions are mounting over whether Taipei’s retaliatory moves can deliver results.
The dispute has widened in recent weeks after South Korea, Denmark and Cameroon were found to have changed how they designate the island in official systems, such as those that handle visa documents, residence permits and international conference credentials.
Taipei has responded with a mix of symbolic and practical countermeasures.
Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.
These include relabelling “Korea” as “South Korea” in official documents, restricting privileges for staff at Denmark’s representative office in Taiwan, and boycotting a World Trade Organization ministerial meeting hosted by Cameroon.
But analysts and lawmakers said the effectiveness of such steps remained uncertain as most governments recognised Beijing diplomatically.
At the centre of the latest controversy is South Korea’s electronic arrival card system, which has listed the island as “China (Taiwan)” since February last year.
Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung said on March 19 that Taipei had adopted a strategy combining “flexibility and firmness” that aimed to resolve the issue through dialogue while keeping countermeasures in reserve.
“We hope the South Korean government will take our concerns seriously and avoid labelling Taiwan as ‘China (Taiwan)’,” Lin said, adding that the island would take retaliatory measures if necessary.
Taipei had given Seoul until the end of March to respond, warning that further steps – including changes to how South Korea is designated in Taiwan’s own entry systems – remained on the table.
As of Tuesday’s deadline, the island’s foreign ministry has stepped back from its planned retaliation, saying Seoul had informed it that it was “updating its e-arrival system to facilitate international travel”. It did not specify whether the update would change Taiwan’s designation or when it would take effect.
Taipei’s foreign ministry has also criticised Denmark, where residents from the island have been listed as being from “China” on residence permits since 2024. The ministry warned of additional countermeasures if the issue was not corrected.
Lin said Taiwan had already “adjusted the privileges” and immunities granted to staff at the Danish representative office in Taipei, while seeking support from Group of Seven (G7) and other European Union members to encourage Denmark to align with broader EU practice in referring to Taiwan.
Separately, Taiwan has lodged a formal protest against Cameroon after it labelled the island as “Taiwan, province of China” in visa documents for the WTO ministerial conference, prompting Taipei to skip the meeting for the first time.
Beijing has welcomed such designations. Foreign ministry spokesman Lin Jian reiterated last Tuesday that the “one-China principle” was the political basis for the island’s participation in international organisations, and accused Taipei of “political manipulation”.
“Taiwan is part of China,” Zhu Fenglian, a spokeswoman for Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said on Wednesday. She added that the one-China principle was a “basic norm of international relations and a widely recognised consensus of the international community”.
Beijing sees Taiwan as part of China to be reunited by force if necessary. Most countries, including the US, Denmark, South Korea and Cameroon, do not recognise Taiwan as an independent state. But Washington is opposed to any attempt to take the self-governed island by force and is committed to supplying it with weapons.
While Taipei has framed its response as a defence of dignity, opposition lawmakers have questioned whether the measures carried enough weight to change behaviour.
Legislator Lai Shyh-bao of the Kuomintang (KMT), the island’s main opposition party, said calling Korea “South Korea” was unlikely to exert real pressure, as the term was neutral and widely accepted.
Another KMT lawmaker, Ma Wen-chun, pointed to the Denmark case, saying the issue had persisted for two years without resolution and arguing that more concrete measures were needed.
Ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers broadly supported Taipei’s efforts, while urging careful handling of sensitivities in relations with foreign governments.
DPP legislator Wang Ting-yu said safeguarding the island’s dignity was “necessary”, but cautioned that “etiquette and communication details should be carefully managed in specific interactions”.
Some lawmakers have suggested stronger options, including cancelling visa-free treatment for South Korean visitors.
A government official said Taiwan could, in theory, reconsider visa-free access, but warned of the risk of backlash.
“Not only would Seoul retaliate in kind, but Taiwan would also risk losing tourism revenue from South Korean visitors, who make up more than 10 per cent of Taiwan’s inbound visitors and rank among its top three source markets,” the official said on condition of anonymity.
Analysts said the controversy reflected a broader pattern rather than isolated incidents.
James Yifan Chen of Tamkang University said many governments had adopted nuanced or ambiguous formulations to balance ties with both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
“These nuanced distinctions reflect Seoul’s attempt to strike a balance under complex cross-strait dynamics,” he said.
“Amid pressure from great powers, Taiwan did not rally behind Denmark when the US president threatened to acquire Greenland,” he said, referring to Donald Trump.
On retaliatory measures, Chen warned that if South Korea and Denmark refused to comply, further escalation could prove counterproductive.
“Such pressure on South Korea and Denmark could backfire, damaging Taiwan’s image in the hearts and minds of their people,” he said.
Cameroon’s stance represented a different dynamic, he added.
“Mainland China’s influence in Africa is substantial, and only one African country currently does not recognise Beijing.”
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Beijing’s efforts in Africa and international organisations would continue to constrain Taiwan’s participation, Chen said.
“If Taiwan continues to boycott these events, it risks losing even more of its voice and discourse on the global stage,” he cautioned, adding that the “essence of diplomacy is to make friends, not to cause trouble”, but Taiwan’s recent approach risked doing the opposite.
Wang Kung-yi, head of Taiwan International Strategic Study Society, a Taipei-based think tank, said the issue reflected a broader “structural reality” in global diplomacy, where countries balanced economic ties with mainland China against security reliance on the United States.
“This is not an exception but a long-standing practice,” he said, adding that Taiwan risked becoming a “low-cost bargaining chip” in great power competition.
He said the recent controversy was less about a sudden policy shift than increased political attention inside Taiwan, driven by legislative scrutiny, public backlash and media coverage.
Wang also questioned whether Taiwan’s countermeasures could generate meaningful pressure, noting that relabelling “Korea” as “South Korea” was unlikely to have a real impact.
Countries such as South Korea and Denmark, he added, often pursued “transactional diplomacy” between Washington and Beijing, making them reluctant to shift positions on Taiwan under current geopolitical constraints.
Last week, Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginiene said the opening of the Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania had been a “mistake” and had brought no benefits from Taipei while damaging relations with Beijing.
“The main mistake was made when we rushed ahead … and established an office under a name that no one else in the EU had used until now – thus finally severing all, even business, relations with China. What did this bring us? Exactly zero benefit from Taiwan and a significant negative one from China,” Ruginiene said in an interview with Lithuanian news portal Lrytas.
Ties between Vilnius and Beijing soured after the European country allowed the opening of the de facto Taiwanese embassy in 2021, a move Beijing slammed as a serious infringement of its national sovereignty.
More Articles from SCMP
Why spike in fertiliser prices may boost China’s political clout amid Iran war shockwaves
How US war in Iran is pushing Philippines closer to China
SCMP Best Bets: Speedy Smartie can live up to his name at Sha Tin
Netflix movie review: Humint – dynamic Korean spy thriller from Ryoo Seung-wan
This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (www.scmp.com), the leading news media reporting on China and Asia.
Copyright (c) 2026. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.
