President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) decision to change the name of state-owned companies and overseas offices is to be applauded.
For far too long, state-owned companies have dragged along with them a name stemming from the middle of the previous century.
This was when they were part of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) China-based empire: China Airlines, China Shipbuilding, Chinese Petroleum and China Steel reflected the KMT's claim to rule over all of China.
The fact that we are now in the 21st century requires a name change that reflects the present-day reality that these companies are part of the infrastructure of a new Taiwan and have no links with China.
All too often, these companies were perceived as being "Chinese," leading to an endless series of confusing incidents, such as the painful headline a few years ago that a Chinese airliner had crashed, when it was in fact a China Airlines
aircraft.
Chen's move to change the name of overseas offices is also to be welcomed: in most countries, the offices are referred to as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office."
As everyone knows, they do more than represent "Taipei," but the rather paranoid condition of the KMT and the People First Party -- and their renewed majority in the legislature -- have obstructed an update of the reality.
The fate of these proposed changes in the wake of the pan-blue election victory remains unclear.
Still, there are some peculiar reactions to be heard around the world.
In a US Department of State press briefing last Monday, deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said -- with a straight face -- that "we are not supportive of them [the name changes]."
He added that "these changes of terminology for government-controlled enterprises or economic and cultural offices abroad" would appear to unilaterally change Taiwan's status, and for that reason Washington could not be supportive of them.
So, let us try to understand Ereli.
We cannot refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan"? We should instead continue to refer to Taiwanese companies as "China-something"?
This defies all logic, and we hope that the State Department will pull its head out of the clouds very soon.
China should actually be all too happy that Taiwan is not competing with them anymore -- whether it be for sovereignty, or a name.
Ereli also wants us to believe that changing the name of a company is somehow changing Taiwan's status.
Would this mean that changing the name of American Airlines or US Steel Corp changes the status of the US? The answer should be clear.
The situation is of course a bit different with the overseas representative offices. There we have a bit of a history to deal with.
When the US and other nations still had diplomatic ties with the KMT, these offices were referred to as an "embassy" or a "consulate."
When the KMT lost recognition as the government representing China, these offices were renamed, first to the Coordinating Council for North American Affairs, and later -- when Taipei became a bit more democratic -- to Taipei Representative offices.
So it is only logical: The names of these offices should be updated to reflect reality.
So we suggest that Chen move ahead and let Taiwan be "Taiwan."
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of the Washington-based Taiwan Communique.
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