Because of China's incessant oppression of Taiwan, a variety of names for the country have emerged -- including Taiwan, the Republic of China (ROC), Formosa, Taiwan-Penghu-Kinmen-Matsu and Chinese Taipei. The diversity of the country's names has caused confusion among its own people, not to mention foreigners. Some countries which are not familiar with the complexities of the names are likely to make mistakes and cause embarrassment during a diplomatic trip of Taiwan's -- and China's -- top officials. This chaotic situation has severely damaged the people's national identity.
There is similar confusion about China's name. It has been called "Red China" and "Communist China." But now there is consensus in international society to simply use the name "China." Nevertheless, Taiwan still addresses China in various ways. In the past, the most commonly used name was "Chung Kung," which, strictly speaking, refers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) rather than a national administration. Maybe "Chung Kung" can be better understood as a backward construction of "Communist China," or as a conflation of party and state entity. Also, some people call China the "Chinese mainland," the "mainland," or even the "inland."
Since China insists on its "one China" policy, the name "China" has become its unique designation. As a result, more and more Taiwanese people use the name "China" for the sake of showing respect to the Chinese government. But some Taiwanese people are not only unwilling to make such a concession, but want to fight over the title and legitimacy of "China" -- so they still use "Chung Kung" or "the mainland" although these are not very precise terms.
Apart from connoting the unity of party and state, "Chung Kung" can negatively imply a single "party-state" entity. The character "Kung" (共) has a negative association and its use is avoided in China. Almost no one will accept being labeled as "Chin Kung [affiliating to the CCP]." Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan (
One Chinese media outlet actually called the CCP Central Committee the "mainland central" committee, and it also -- ridiculously -- referred to 1930s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-ruled as "mainland central." These types of names ignore the differences between a political party and a region. Another example is the recent newspaper headline that used the phrase "mainland Fujian Province." If that usage is justified, should there also be a "Taiwan Fujian Province" or "Chinese Taipei Fujian Province?"
Rectifying the name of Taiwan is a process that has constantly been suppressed by China. Of course there are disagreements within Taiwan on this issue, and the US is not particularly understanding of the country's predicament. In these circumstances, Premier Yu Shyi-kun recently suggested the consistent use of "China" to avoid confusion. Shouldn't China accept this friendly gesture? If Chinese people don't recognize their national entity as "China," then what does their "one China" policy stand for? Would the "mainland government," and the "mainland flag" sound better to represent the great "mainland country?"
But the Chinese government is reluctant to accept Taiwan's goodwill on this issue. This is similar to China's response in 1987, when Taiwan lifted martial law. Despite our friendliness, China wasn't grateful. Instead, it continued to emphasize its view that Taiwan is a part of China, and hoped that Taiwan would launch a war against it. When Taiwan did not do this, China began its campaign of military threats. Only a psychologically abnormal government, which doesn't speak for its people and tramples on human rights, is interested in wars and continuously makes war a topic of debate to distract the public. The Chinese government is such a government.
Since Taiwan cannot yet rectify its own name, it must settle for second best and rectify China's name, to clarify the distinction between the two. This not only strengthens national identity, but also makes the world gradually recognize Taiwan.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS