Tensions between China and Lithuania over the Taiwan issue have led to allegations that China Customs has removed Lithuania from its electronic operating system, making it impossible for goods to clear customs. Chinese media later cited informed sources to deny, but the official website of the General Administration of Customs of China shows that some logistics companies recently reflected that “Lithuania’s orders can not pass”.
The Lithuanian news website 15Min quoted a timber exporter as saying on December 5 that his trading partner in China could not clear customs for his recently arrived container in Shanghai, because Lithuania is no longer a country in the local customs computer system since December 1. Vidmantas Januleviius, chairman of the Lithuanian Industry Federation, confirmed this.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said on the 3rd that he plans to make a formal request to the EU Executive Committee to intervene with China next week.
However, a source quoted by Chinese media ThePaper on Dec. 5 said that Lithuania is still in China’s “electronic customs” system; it can still be found in the existing electronic customs declaration system. Therefore, the Lithuanian media statement is not accurate.
The report also said that currently there are no public regulations on the official websites of the General Administration of Customs and the Ministry of Commerce indicating that Lithuanian timber or goods are embargoed.
The Weibo account “Shenzhen Zhang Yixuan” also uploaded a screenshot of the electronic customs declaration system on December 5, showing that the option of “LTU Lithuania” can still be found.
However, a search of the official website of the General Administration of Customs of China for information related to Lithuania reveals that some Chinese logistics companies have recently reported that goods from Lithuania could not be cleared due to the abnormal customs declaration system.
In the “Business Consulting” section of the official website, the user with the number QQ270300136 left a message on November 30, 2021, saying, “The list of origin: Lithuania cannot be declared.”
The message showed that Guangzhou Changlian International Logistics Co., Ltd. reflected that when helping IKEA Purchasing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to declare, the order was returned, and the content of the returned order was shown as “logic not passed, system abnormalities”, and that the Customs of Shatian, where the declaration was made, failed to solve the problem after efforts to deal with it.
The Chinese General Administration of Customs responded on December 2, asking the person who left the message to contact the customs office on site to deal with the situation, and showed “processed” in the processing status column.
It is reported that the tension between the two countries stems from China’s dissatisfaction with Lithuania’s permission to set up a representative office in Taiwan, and announced on November 26 that the diplomatic mission in Lithuania would be downgraded to a “representative office”.
Two days before that, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian hinted that sanctions would be imposed on Lithuania in the field of trade and economy. He said that Lithuania has set a bad precedent in the international arena by reneging on its trust and knowingly creating “one China, one Taiwan”, and “since it has done something wrong, it must pay for it”.
However, despite China’s protest, on November 29, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen revealed during a meeting with visiting members of parliament from the three European Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) that Lithuania will open a representative office in Taiwan early next year.
In response, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesperson for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said on Dec. 1, “We firmly oppose any form of official contacts between our diplomatic partners and Taiwan, China, under any pretext. We urge the countries concerned to abide by the one-China principle and handle the Taiwan issue carefully and properly. The DPP authorities’ vain attempt to collude with external forces to seek ‘independence’ will not succeed no matter what tricks they play.” Source