Steve Wang's letter (Letters) Oct. 10, page 8) contains the statement "Google has correctly listed Taiwan as a province of China because Google is a US corporation and the status of Taiwan to the US is that Taiwan is a part of China, as defined by the Shanghai Communique and the Taiwan Relations Act, the second which was agreed to and signed by the US Congress."
The Taiwan Relations Act contains not a single instance of "Taiwan, Province of China." Additionally, the 1979 Act does not define the status of Taiwan from the US' point of view, nor does it have a statement that "Taiwan is part of China."
In the Shanghai Communique, the US acknowledges the PRC's position that Taiwan is part of China, but it does not necessarily recognize this position. The US further emphasized this when it established diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1979. Products made in Taiwan that appear in the US are not labeled "Taiwan, Province of China." At the airport, US Customs and Immigration officials never ask people from Taiwan if they are from "Taiwan, Province of China." The average American Joe or Jane never says "So you're from Taiwan, Province of China, eh?" The American Institute in Taiwan is not called "The American Institute in Taiwan, Province of China."
While the ISO 3166 directory of names of countries and territories has the TW code as Taiwan, Province of China, most major commercial Web sites such as Amazon.com, Nytimes.com, and Barnesandnoble.com took the time to remove the "Province of China" reference in their country and territory address forms, rather than to blindly use the ISO 3166 standard. No doubt these are US-based corporations.
While it is disturbingly true that Swiss residency permits say that people from Taiwan are people from "Chinese Taipei," and while it is absurdly true that airport timetable Web sites such as the OAG airport flightfinder site list Taipei and Kaohsiung as cities of "Chinese Taipei," international news agencies remove "Chinese Taipei" references from press releases of international organizations and simply refer to the ROC as "Taiwan."
Quite frankly, Google has contradicted itself. If one goes to its Taiwan-based Web site www.google.com.tw and click on "Google.com in English," one ends up on the English Google page with a link to "Go to Google Taiwan."
Freud made the comment that a cigar is just a cigar. But certain corporations and entities are willing to coddle this authoritarian government by submitting to its whims.
Perhaps Wang could do a subtle rather than superficial study of history next time.
Allen Timothy Chang
Taipei
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS