Most Westerners identify the name "Taiwan" with a progressive, technically innovative and democratic country that makes high quality products and exports them around the world.
Taiwan is a "brand" that people trust, and "Made in Taiwan" evokes quality and reliability. Westerners generally regard people from Taiwan as Taiwanese but are sometimes unsure exactly how to identify the native language they speak.
Notwithstanding the political, constitutional and legal imperatives, when the Republic of China (ROC) is used however, the country's identity becomes a little murky.
First, the ambiguity in the name can imply that the ROC belongs to China.
Second, acronyms with the letter R for Republic in them are mostly associated with repressive communist regimes such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the USSR and the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Third, a question many Westerners raise is, are people from the ROC Chinese or Taiwanese? Then, we have the leading advocates for Taiwan in the US bearing the historical name Formosa.
The "Formosa Foundation" and the "Formosan Association for Public Affairs" add to Westerners confusion and obscure Taiwan's modern status and true identity. Whatever the political motivation for President Chen Shui-bian's (
Westerners trust people from Taiwan and people representing Taiwanese companies. People representing Taiwanese companies with China in their name are sometimes misunderstood and are treated a little more cautiously. This cautiousness stems from the fact that the PRC's legal protections and copyright issues are not as robust as Taiwan's.
Taiwan needs to proudly and boldly reinforce its "brand" recognition in the world with a clear and unambiguous identity.
This will benefit not only the Taiwanese people in their international dealings but will also assist people who do business with Taiwan, potential tourists, government officials of foreign countries and other international organizations that wish to deal with a modern, vibrant, free and independent Taiwan.
Walt Brown
Auckland, New Zealand
It is a mistake for Michael Falick to say that state-run entities in Taiwan are "owned -- and named -- by China" (Letter, Feb. 26, page 8). This is precisely the reason why many names in Taiwan have to be rectified to avoid mistakes and confusion like this.
Many of these Taiwanese entities were established even before the PRC was born. China cannot have named or owned them. Although most of them still carry "China" or "Chinese" in their names, they are not owned by China. As state-run corporations, they belong to the people of Taiwan. The government has the responsibility to administer them and report to the people rather than the shareholders.
Likewise, New England does not belong to England, nor is New Mexico part of Mexico, although Americans choose not to change these names since England and Mexico do not claim these areas.
Taiwan is called "Chinese Taipei" in the Olympics, APEC meetings and other international gatherings. Americans would be pissed off if the US were called "British Washington." Taiwan's official representative office in the US has a lengthy name, "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office." This name needs to be shortened for simplicity.
Individuals also have rights to change or to keep their names. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chiang (
It was childish for Ma to criticize the recent name changes in Taiwan as "childish." Ma always opposes whatever President Chen says and does anyway.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers