Luke de Pulford, founder and executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), recently led a delegation to Taiwan to attend the Ketagalan Forum. In an interview with the media he stated that IPAC rejects the “anti-China” label, viewing it as a propaganda tactic by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to undermine criticism of the regime. IPAC encourages democratic nations to formulate practical policies toward China.
Labeling IPAC as ‘anti-China:’ The CCP’s tactic to weaken criticism
Founded on June 4, 2020, IPAC is an international organization comprising more than 300 cross-party parliamentarians from 44 countries and the European Union.
A high-level IPAC delegation visited Taiwan in August 2026 to attend the “Ketagalan Forum: 2026 Indo-Pacific Security Dialogue.” Delegation members included IPAC Co-Chair and former Japanese Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani, IPAC Founder and Executive Director Luke de Pulford, and IPAC Japan Director Shiori Yamao. They were received by Taiwan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung.
In an exclusive interview with the Central News Agency during his visit to Taiwan, Luke de Pulford stated that IPAC was founded to coordinate the responses of democratic nations to China’s various policies. Lawmakers within the alliance, who come from different political backgrounds, hold differing views on China and employ different approaches to engaging with it. “Reducing IPAC to an ‘anti-China’ organization is part of the CCP’s propaganda, an attempt to weaken criticism of the CCP,” he said.
Countries recognize the true nature of the CCP
Pei Lun-de pointed out that whenever the Chinese Communist Party sees lawmakers from different countries and backgrounds expressing concern over its various actions, it hopes these lawmakers will stop speaking out. IPAC members are dissatisfied with the CCP’s practices and therefore hope to resolve these issues. Furthermore, lawmakers from various countries are gradually realizing that the current CCP is far removed from what they previously understood or expected.
For the best of our weekly content！
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Check your email to complete sign up
Pei emphasized, “IPAC does not accept the ‘anti-China’ label,” because IPAC members hold deep respect for China, Chinese culture, and the Chinese people. What they oppose, however, is authoritarianism and the actions of authoritarian governments, which is not the same as being anti-China. IPAC’s mission is not to change China’s behavior but to encourage democratic nations to adopt more pragmatic policies toward China.
What constitutes a more effective policy toward China? Pei pointed out that people are not yet prepared to deal with escalating tensions across the Taiwan Strait, and that the actions taken in response to Beijing’s escalating threats are far from sufficient. Therefore, he believes it is essential to formulate an effective policy toward China, and IPAC aims to use the platform of Congress to promote dialogue and reshape democratic nations’ policies toward China.
He also noted that while IPAC has faced challenges in its operations in Africa and the South Pacific, its membership in Latin America has grown rapidly. Pei humorously remarked that every time IPAC loses a member in Africa or the South Pacific, it gains 10 new members in Latin America, adding that Beijing’s attempt to accuse IPAC of being “anti-China” has failed.
In 2024, IPAC held its annual conference in Taiwan for the first time and adopted a model resolution reaffirming that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 does not address the Taiwan issue, while pointing out the Chinese government’s improper linking of this resolution to the “One-China Principle.” Subsequently, the legislatures of several countries successively passed related resolutions adopting the model resolution text proposed by IPAC.
Pei Lun-de stated that 12 parliaments have already passed similar resolutions, and there will certainly be more in the future. Nowadays, Beijing rarely mentions UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, “Everyone knows Beijing is lying,” and the Chinese Communist Party has now shifted its focus to the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling.
In 2024, Taiwan’s legislature formally joined IPAC, with DPP Legislator Fan Yun and People’s Party Legislator Chen Zhaozi serving as co-chairs. This year, DPP legislators Chen Guanting, Wang Dingyu, and Zhang Yalin, as well as People’s Party legislators Xu Zhongxin, Hong Yuxiang, and Wang Anxiang, also joined IPAC’s cross-party network.
Regarding the absence of Kuomintang (KMT) legislators, Pei noted that the KMT had been invited to join IPAC at its inception, and he had previously engaged in exchanges with KMT legislators. However, communication has become more difficult in recent years and he has indeed sensed some “obstacles,” but IPAC still looks forward to the participation of KMT legislators.
Pei Lun-de pointed out that he was unclear as to why the KMT was reluctant to join IPAC. “All political parties in Taiwan hope to maintain good international relations, but ignoring IPAC means ignoring their strongest international ally, which he believes is unreasonable.”
IPAC statement condemns the CCP’s ‘Law on promoting ethnic unity and progress’
According to Taiwan’s Presidential Office, on Aug. 4, IPAC co-founder and Executive Director Luke de Pulford outlined the alliance’s statement opposing the Chinese Communist Party’s “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” during the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei and formally presented a copy to President Lai Ching-te. IPAC had issued the statement on July 1, when the law took effect, condemning its enactment and implementation as a “flagrant breach of fundamental rights.”
The statement strongly condemned the CCP’s “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress,” implemented in July 2026, for severely violating basic human rights and persecuting Tibetans, Uyghurs, and other ethnic minorities through a state-led assimilation campaign. Furthermore, the statement criticizes the law for carrying out transnational repression by extending its effect and extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond China’s borders, thereby subjecting global dissidents and free societies to political censorship and intimidation, constituting “red terror” and a violation of sovereignty.
Original article
Comments