More than 100,000 people took to the streets yesterday to promote calling Taiwan "Taiwan" -- once again demonstrating Taiwan's active quest for democracy and its willingness to reflect on its past.
One important lesson to be learned from the fact that this demonstration could be carried out without a hitch is that Taiwan -- having lived through decades of democracy activism and completed many systemic reforms -- is entering the last and most difficult stage of democratic reform.
Taiwan has been under colonial rule for more than 400 years. Since 1895 it has had 50 years of Japanese rule and more than 40 years of colonial-style rule by the alien KMT. This has for a long time caused people to lack identification with the land and the nation.
This was the reason why former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) proposed the "self-awareness" (主體性) concept, prompting people to reflect on their national identity. The emergence of a specifically Taiwanese identity and its formalization in national institutions is the great reform Lee was unable to complete during his 12 years as the nation's leader.
Taiwan has its own military, territory and constitution. Its people can choose its legislators and president in direct and free elections. There is local self-rule, economic freedom and the rights of free speech and publication. There is an independent judiciary.
All these things meet the requirements of an independent, sovereign nation. Yet, internationally speaking, Taiwan is not a legal entity. When its citizens travel abroad they are asked where they are from and about the name of their country. The key to all these problems is Lee's unfinished final reform.
The significance of the movement to rectify the name of Taiwan does not lie in Taiwan's independence or unification with China. It is a movement to bring about self-awareness, urging the entire Taiwanese community to examine their common fate seriously. It is the ultimate and inescapable issue faced by everyone living on the island, whether they are indigenous peoples or mainlanders, Fukienese or Hakka. It may take a while before we can settle on a name we all agree on, yet we have to realize the disagreements and conflicts that exist between our country's name and the entity it represents.
Those whose families came from Fukien province want to change our country's name to Taiwan. Taiwan is, after all, where the vast majority of us live; the choice of name simply reflects this reality.
Those who oppose the campaign to call Taiwan Taiwan insist that the nation's official name is the Republic of China (ROC), despite that fact that Taiwan was not part of the ROC at its founding nor was sovereignty ever transferred to the ROC at a later date. The ROC name is in fact a symbol of Taiwan colonial tutelage. Since the colonial past cannot itself be defended, the excuse of those who oppose a name change is that it's too difficult for us to use "Taiwan" as the official name of the nation in light of today's international political situation. This logic has confused cause and effect. It's also a defeatist attitude cultivated by the KMT's rule over the past half century.
Rectifying the name of Taiwan is the beginning of the last phase of the nation's democratic reform. It is foreseeable that this mission will take much more energy and time. Although yesterday's march went off smoothly and peacefully, most participants were local senior Taiwanese from southern Taiwan -- showing that the nation's young generation is cool towards politics and has a weak national identity.
Demonstrations cannot solve these problems. We need to start from the root -- our educational system -- and allow our youth to get a clear picture of Taiwan's history and reflect on their relationship with this land.
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