Eswatini case shows Beijing’s pressure on Taiwan persists after KMT’s China visit, experts say

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) postponed visit to Eswatini triggered a wave of reactions across political camps and international stakeholders, with both domestic and foreign experts widely noting that Beijing’s pressure has not eased despite a recent high-profile visit to China by senior Taiwanese opposition leaders. 

A disrupted diplomatic mission

President Lai’s planned state visit to Eswatini — Taiwan’s sole diplomatic ally in Africa — was abruptly postponed after multiple countries reportedly denied overflight permissions.

The incident, while ostensibly technical in nature, quickly escalated into a geopolitical flashpoint, exposing the intersection of aviation governance, diplomacy, and great-power competition.

Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a strongly worded statement on April 22 condemning what it described as the “politicization and weaponization of flight information regions”.

It accused Beijing of interfering in the sovereign decisions of other countries and undermining the routine functioning of international civil aviation. MOFA further criticized Seychelles and Madagascar for echoing Beijing’s stance, calling on the international community to recognize China’s broader pattern of political and economic coercion.

Reaffirming Taiwan’s position, MOFA emphasized that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a sovereign democratic nation with the right to engage internationally. “Any statements that attempt to undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty have no bearing on the global consensus and the objective reality of the Taiwan Strait status quo,” it stated.

Beijing’s expanding toolkit: carrots and sticks

The timing of the incident has drawn particular scrutiny. Just days before the overflight denials, Kuomintang (KMT) party chair Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), led a delegation of senior opposition figures to meet with Chinese leadership in Beijing — a visit widely interpreted as an attempt to ease cross-strait tensions.

Yet rather than signaling détente, the episode appears to have been followed by renewed pressure on Taiwan’s diplomatic outreach, as shown in the Eswatini case.

Japanese scholar Yoshiyuki Ogasawara described this juxtaposition as emblematic of Beijing’s dual-track strategy. He likened it to the allegory of the “sun and the wind,” in which inducements and coercion are deployed in tandem to achieve political ends.

“After Cheng’s visit, Beijing immediately rolled out preferential measures toward Taiwan, while simultaneously obstructing President Lai’s diplomatic mission,” Ogasawara noted. “This creates a profoundly contradictory signal — one that ultimately undermines trust rather than building it.”

He added that such calibrated ambiguity may in fact be counterproductive, as the benefits of goodwill gestures are offset by the resentment generated through coercive acts.

Political analyst Wang Hao (汪浩), an Oxford PhD and former investment banker, characterized the move as a form of “united front” and “divide and conquer.”

“People in Taiwan see that Cheng's visit to China plays a double act with Beijing, while the president's overseas trip is obstructed. This pressure of division has reached a critical point,” Wang told TCN.

Wang added that the Eswatini case is a form of economic coercion that extends beyond Taiwan itself. “Beijing is not only isolating Taiwan — it is challenging the very principle of global aviation freedom,” he said, arguing that such actions reflect a more pervasive authoritarian expansion.

Wang further called for a more robust Taiwanese response, including tighter export controls on advanced semiconductor technologies and stronger domestic safeguards against infiltration. He said that Taiwan should expose to the international community how the Chinese Communist Party politicizes civil aviation zones and threatens the international order.

“The war has already begun.” Alvin Chang (張育萌), co-founder of the Taiwan Youth Association for Democracy wrote on social media.

Chang wrote that even before China pressured African countries to deny Lai’s overflight permissions, Beijing had already been using its influence in African-based media outlets to slander Taiwan’s ambassador in Eswatini. Chang called it cognitive warfare in the realm of public opinion.

China has been economically coercing Eswatini, Chang added. Beijing has granted zero-tariff treatment starting this May to 53 African countries, with Eswatini — Taiwan's only remaining diplomatic ally in Africa — the sole exception.

Chang rejected the notion that Beijing would show goodwill after Cheng’s and the KMT delegation’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jingping (習近平). He said that preventing the Taiwanese president from making overseas visits could in no way be seen as a sign of goodwill.

Strategic context: Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean

Yang Kuang-shun (楊光舜), co-founder of the US-based NGO US–Taiwan Watch, told TCN that the episode should be viewed within a broader geopolitical canvas. He noted that China’s footprint across Africa has long been substantial, while Taiwan maintains formal ties with only a single partner on the continent.

Eswatini itself, he said, carries limited strategic weight, and even an attempt by Beijing to pry it away would be largely symbolic. More consequential, in his view, is the demonstration effect: by influencing multiple countries to deny overflight access, China is signaling the breadth of its reach across Africa and the Indian Ocean region.

Yang pointed to wider strategic currents underpinning this dynamic. He referenced past discussions in the United Kingdom over the potential transfer of sovereignty of islands associated with Diego Garcia to Mauritius — territory hosting a key US military facility —  as well as Beijing’s earlier acquisition of a 99-year lease on Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Taken together, he said, these developments illustrate a sustained effort by China to consolidate its influence along critical nodes of the Indian Ocean.

Against this backdrop, Yang stated that despite the postponement, Lai had personally conveyed regards to Eswatini’s monarch, who in turn expressed regret over the disruption while reaffirming the solidity of bilateral ties.

Yang emphasized that Taiwan’s relationships with its diplomatic partners rest less on ceremonial exchanges than on substantive cooperation and, crucially, support from the United States.

As precedent, Yang noted that a previously discussed presidential visit to Paraguay did not ultimately materialize, yet relations remained intact. Conversely, Lai had attended the inauguration of Honduras’s president during his tenure as vice president, only for Honduras to later sever ties with Taipei.

Diplomatic visits, he concluded, may reflect the health of bilateral relations, but their absence does not necessarily signal deterioration.

Nuanced domestic political reactions

Within Taiwan, the incident has elicited both bipartisan condemnation of Beijing and sharp disagreements over policy direction.

Legislator Chen Kuan-ting (陳冠廷) of the ruling party criticized China’s actions as an unacceptable escalation in a video he uploaded on April 22.

He argued that the pressure of Beijing now extends beyond Taiwan’s diplomatic allies to neighboring countries. He called on all political parties to unite in condemning what he described as an infringement on Taiwan’s international rights.

Opposition voices, however, directed part of their criticism inward. KMT Chair Cheng, while presiding over an April 22 KMT meeting, called the postponement a major setback.

She said she had expressed her best wishes to Lai before his trip, but that Lai should not blame the opposition for the outcome. She also questioned whether it was a sign that the national security team had seriously misjudged the situation.

Charles Chen I-hsin (陳以信), a former KMT legislator and now Washington-based think tank executive director, wrote on social media that Taiwan’s foreign policy missteps may have contributed to the outcome.

He called the overflight denials by African countries “aggravating and regrettable,” but said that Taiwan’s overly high-profile diplomatic endeavors could have provoked backlash.

Similarly, former KMT vice-presidential candidate Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) struck a dual note on social media — condemning Beijing’s actions as excessive and humiliating, while also urging the government to improve cross-strait relations to prevent recurring crises.

Taiwan People’s Party, the third largest political party in Taiwan, expressed support for Taiwan’s continued efforts to advance diplomacy while urging Beijing to cease coercive measures that risk destabilizing the region and push the people of Taiwan further away, according to Central News Agency.

International responses: concern over precedent

The controversy has also drawn attention from international actors, many of whom framed the issue in terms of broader norms rather than bilateral politics.

The United States House Foreign Affairs Committee condemned what it described as Beijing’s “bullying” of Taiwan, reaffirming Washington’s support for its democratic partner.

The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), the de facto US embassy in Taiwan echoed this sentiment, issuing a statement that the misuse of civil aviation systems for political purposes threatens not only Taiwan but “international peace and prosperity.”

European and British representatives focused on procedural integrity. The British Office Taipei, the UK’s de facto embassy in Taiwan, emphasized that airspace management should prioritize safety and remain free from political manipulation, while the European Economic and Trade Office in Taiwan called for transparency in decisions regarding airspace restrictions.

These statements collectively underscore a growing concern that the incident may set a precedent for the politicization of international infrastructure.