A new debate on the national flag is taking place in Taiwan. The battle lines are predictable: the KMT and James Soong's (宋楚瑜) PFP are clinging to the old flag, brought over from China in 1945, while the TSU and significant parts of the DPP are in favor of a new flag that represents the new, democratic Taiwan.
It is good to take a step back and see how this issue is perceived by the international community, particularly the US and Europe. Overseas observers, governments and parliaments see Taiwan in a positive light because of its recent democratization, but the US and Europe can't bring themselves to normalize relations with Taiwan because of pressure from China.
This pressure is deep-rooted, primarily in the civil war fought from the 1920s through 1949 between the Chinese Communists and the KMT of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). To the Chinese, the KMT and the ROC flag became symbols of that decades-long conflict.
Taiwan went through its democratic transformation in the 1980s and 1990s, which culminated in the election of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in March 2000. However, the new government took on the shell of the old system, including its symbols, such as the 1947 Constitution, the 1911 "made in China" flag and the equally outdated anthem -- a 1928 KMT song.
It is clear that those symbols have little to do with present-day Taiwan -- they are left-over attributes of the KMT's days in China. While it is perhaps understandable that the KMT old guard wants to cling to them out of a fast-disappearing sense of security, it would be wise for Taiwan to move to a new set of symbols.
The reasons are as follows: As long as Taiwan clings to symbols that are associated with the old civil war, it is a reminder that this civil war is not quite finished. For closure, it is necessary that these symbols are buried. An even more important reason is to find a new flag, anthem and Constitution that truly represent the new Taiwan. This process may take a few years, but it is an essential part of becoming a "new" nation. In the case of the US, it took 11 years -- from the 1776 Declaration of Independence to the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The US national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, wasn't written until 1814.
The old symbols represent only the KMT. Present-day Taiwan is made up of Aborigines, the Hakka- and Hokkien-speaking population, as well as the mainlanders who came over after 1945.
For Taiwan to survive, they all need to identify with the new Taiwan and evolve into a new identity that is truly Taiwanese in nature.
From the international perspective, it is also necessary to develop a new Taiwanese identity.
As long as Taiwan continues to present itself as the ROC, the international community will be forced -- by the "one China" dictum -- to maintain the line that only informal, economic and cultural ties are possible.
Only when Taiwan states clearly and unequivocally that it distances itself from the ROC identity, and presents itself as a new and democratic nation, will it be able to open the doors toward full recognition and diplomatic relations.
A fair and open debate about the national flag and anthem would be a good start.
Gerrit van der Wees and Mei-chin Chen are editors of Taiwan Communique, an international publication dedicated to democracy in Taiwan and full and equal membership of Taiwan in the international community.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath