China is dragging international airlines into the dispute over Taiwan’s sovereignty

time of writing, Delta’s website offers flights to ‘Taipei,’ but includes no country name – as this screenshot of its website shows. Image: author provided.

Taiwanese citizens have been travelling to airports with feelings of nervous trepidation recently. The question preying on their minds: will their passports be accepted as valid travel documents?

Concerns were first aroused by a message that appeared on several social media platforms. It claimed that a Taiwanese national was unable to board an Air Canada flight because the airline would not accept his passport in accordance with new Chinese regulations.

“Due to China’s request,” the post read, “Taiwan is no longer listed as an individual country, passports are invalid, and another ID must be used. Please remember your IDs.”

Although this message was later dismissed by the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs as misinformation, the wave of panic that it unleashed is not without reason or precedent. Since the Chinese civil war of 1949, the people of Taiwan have argued that they belong to a sovereign state that is clearly distinct from the Chinese mainland. But China refutes this notion, viewing the island as little more than a wayward province that must be brought back under its authority.

These competing geopolitical visions have resulted in numerous efforts by Beijing to delegitimise Taiwanese claims to independence, such as attempts to stop the flying of the Taiwanese flag and filing protests against national military drills. In recent months, however, China has struck upon an alternative approach: questioning how international airlines refer to Taiwan, and indeed if they should even refer to it at all.

What’s in a name?

On 25 April, a letter from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) landed on the desks of 36 international air carriers. In it, the CAAC reminded readers that on 27 February he Chinese government had instructed airlines to review their websites, and remove any material that “mistakenly” identified Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong as independent regions.

The letter also instructed that Taiwan should henceforth be referred to as “Chinese Taiwan” or “Taiwan: province/region of China”. Failure to implement these changes, it went on to state, would result in “disciplinary actions” by the CAAC.

Somewhat unsurprisingly, these demands were not warmly received. Leading the cries of protest was the US president, Donald Trump. In a strongly worded statement released on 5 May, the Trump administration lambasted the CAAC’s letter as a blatant attempt to enforce “Chinese political correctness” as a global standard. The statement said:

This is Orwellian nonsense and part of a growing trend by the Chinese Communist Party to impose its political views on American citizens and private companies. China’s internal Internet repression is world famous. China’s efforts to export its censorship and political correctness to Americans and the rest of the free world will be resisted.

The message from the White House was abundantly clear – the affected airlines should stand firm.

At time of writing, Delta’s website offers flights to ‘Taipei’, but includes no country name as it does for other destinations such as ‘London-Heathrow, United Kingdom’ (see below example) – as this screenshot of its website shows. Image: author provided.

London-Heathrow listed as a destination in ‘United Kingdom’ for comparison. Image: author provided.

Yet the vast majority of air carriers have chosen to bow to Chinese pressure rather than heed the US president’s words. In early June, the chief executive of Qantas, Alan Joyce, announced that the airline would be altering how it referred to Taiwanese airports as soon as possible. And after Beijing set a final deadline of 25 July and rejected pleas for further negotiations, the three largest US air carriers – Delta, United and American Airlines – also elected to meet the CAAC’s demands.

The US State Department later expressed its concern about this decision, while the Taiwanese government responded with a press release condemning China’s “crude attempts to coerce foreign airlines to downgrade Taiwan’s status”.


Consequences

The long-term ramifications of international airlines choosing to comply with the CAAC’s requirements remain to be seen. It is clear, however, that this episode marks a significant defeat for advocates of Taiwanese independence. When next booking a flight to the island, users of some airlines will not be able to select a destination name that reflects Taiwan’s self-ruled status. Instead, they must choose one that places it firmly within China’s geopolitical orbit.

The events of recent months have also provided Chinese authorities with an effective way to challenge Taiwan’s sovereignty without incurring the wrath of the international community. For all its early rhetoric, the Trump administration has been forced to watch helplessly as American carriers are arguably drafted as foot soldiers in support of China’s territorial ambitions.

There are signs that this strategy is also already being deployed outside the airline industry. Earlier this year, the hotel chain, Marriot, was reprimanded by China after an email questionnaire listed Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong and Macau as separate “countries”. Japanese retailer Muji, meanwhile, had to pay a fine of 200,000 yuan (£23,400) for using packaging that identified Taiwan as the “country of origin”.

The ConversationThe dispute over Taiwan’s territorial standing, then, has long since spread beyond a small area of the South China Sea – and it is likely to reach even greater heights in the future.

Ed Bryan, PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

What’s killing northerners?

The Angel of the North. Image: Getty.

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have concentrated resources and investment in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But new analysis of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?

To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were caused mainly by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons has dropped since 1981, the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be more susceptible to socioeconomic pressures. Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk has also been associated with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. Further evidence tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. Previous research has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.


It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer are higher in more deprived areas, and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also strongly associated with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen the north-south divide.

The Conversation

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.