After visiting Taiwan a few years ago, some journalists from New Zealand said their biggest regret was the government's refusal to call itself by the name "Taiwan" -- despite it clearly being an independent country. But the nation's official representative offices across the world continue to use other names, confusing allies and friends and undercutting national dignity.
Take, for example, the name of Taiwan's delegation to the WTO. Its title is the "Permanent Mission of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu." Taiwan's representative office in Hong Kong is called a "travel service," and its office in London was once called the Sun Yat-sen Cultural Center. Dignified, indeed.
It is necessary, therefore, to standardize the names of Taiwan's official representative offices and state-run companies in order to clearly distinguish them from those of China.
When the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government broached the introduction of a new constitution and the amendment of the national title, many people said -- all too predictably -- that this was like walking a tightrope, provoking China by implementing a unilateral change to the cross-strait "status quo."
Those raising such questions now seem to include officials from the US Department of State. Yet there can be no doubt that the Taiwanese public is determined to see that peace prevails. The current problem, therefore, is how to adjust the currently unstable situation and help the international community get a clearer picture of this country without attracting too much opposition from less sympathetic countries.
There is no need for the State Department to be so nervous. It seems that as soon as Taiwan mentions a new constitution or title of convenience, their officials fear a declaration of independence is imminent. Taiwanese democracy operates on the strength of the same mechanisms as many other democratic countries. All matters concerning national sovereignty must be approved by the legislature, so President Chen Shui-bian (
Changing the names of state-run enterprises, on the other hand, is a purely domestic matter and the US has no basis on which it can interfere. As for the names of private enterprises, not even Taiwan's government can interfere with such commercial decisions.
Attempts to change the name of Taiwan date back to 1979 when the Taiwan Relations Act came into force. At that time the KMT even protested that the name Taiwan was being used to refer to the Republic of China (ROC). So, if "Taiwan" is now used to stand in for "ROC" in other contexts, the US really has no reason to object. If it does, it might be usefully asked to refer to its own law books.
There is nothing unreasonable about a new constitution that redefines this nation's territories as those which it actually controls, namely Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Similarly, any reasonable person would welcome the name "Taiwan" as a replacement for all of the peculiar titles under which this country has labored so that people can differentiate between Taiwan and China at a glance.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS