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
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