It's hard to know whether to commend or scold the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). Every time it has a good idea, it seems to backtrack from the proposal as fast as it can.
First we had the excellent suggestion that the word Taiwan be added to ROC passports so that the rest of the world could figure out where these documents came from, or perhaps more importantly, to make it plain that they didn't come from the PRC. Then we saw lots of backpedalling, which ended up with passport covers being amended to read "Issued in Taiwan" -- as opposed perhaps to those issued in Honk Kong -- hence remaining just as confusing as ever. So the opportunity for a nice clear statement of national identity was botched.
This week has seen a close re-run of the passport fiasco in the question of whether to rename Taiwan's representative offices abroad. First we hear that there is an intention to rename those offices in countries with which Taiwan does not have diplomatic relations, which are known by a variety of names, some of which give no indication whatsoever of their connection to Taiwan. Then we are told that, while the ministry has done a survey in which the majority of the respondents supported the idea of a name change, nevertheless it has been trying to distance itself further and further from the idea with each day that passes.
Part of the reason is China's bluster about "incremental independence." Of course China will not be happy with anything that suggests Taiwan is not under its boot heel. That is no reason why Taiwan should alter its intentions. Taiwan's "Finlandization" has gone too far as it is.
Another reason is that, while this might be an excellent idea, it might seem like bad timing in the wake of US President George W. Bush's request in China last week that neither side does anything provocative. We hope that the US president would consider Taiwan's using its own name not provocative at all but simply a basic right that it should be able to exercise without raising a din of rattling sabers from its neighbor.
But we wonder if there is anything suspicious about this bad timing. We are not rejecting the "cock up" interpretation of public affairs -- who could, after watching this government for two years? -- but there is a more conspiratorial possibility.
MOFA is well-known as a bastion of reunificationist conservatism; it is the worst of all government departments in this respect. During Lee Teng-hui's (
Some readers might remember the mid-1990s when Taiwan had two ministers of foreign affairs, Fredrick Chien (
Did something of the kind happen this week? Were the renaming plans deliberately leaked to the pro-China media knowing that in the immediate aftermath of Bush's statement they would be considered provocative and so the policy could be derailed? People want to know -- can MOFA be trusted?
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