The stalemate between the Chinese and Taiwanese governments has continued for more than 50 years and it is often unclear to outsiders just what the two sides are fighting about or what they want. The ruckus over the Olympic torch relay is a standard example of how the two sides communicate and may offer some insights for the uninitiated observer.
From the outset, China has wanted to leverage the Olympic Games to showcase its national might and project the torch relay in a way that would bundle Taiwan up with Hong Kong and Macau, giving the international community the mistaken impression that Taiwan is a part of China's territory.
At the same time, China has been changing Taiwan's Olympic designation from "Chinese Taipei" (
After months of negotiations, China's Olympic committee finally declared that Taipei would be listed as "a city of an outside territory" and invited Tsai Chen-wei (
This might have been the end of the matter, but when Tsai arrived in Beijing to sign the agreement, he found the agreement had been nothing but bait. New conditions had been added: Taiwan's national flag and anthem could not appear during the torch relay. Because of the changes, Tsai returned home empty-handed.
There are two lessons to be learned from this. First, China is not to be trusted. Even when an agreement is reached and publicly announced, changes can be expected. Raising the national flag and anthem at the signing of the agreement rather than during negotiations is a clear sign that China wanted it to fall through.
Secondly, Beijing's Taiwan experts don't understand this country. Requiring spontaneous public displays of the national flag to be banned as Taiwan nears two major elections is both humiliating and a violation of democratic rights. Such violations might be possible in China, but in democratic Taiwan, the right to display the national flag is a given and there's nothing the government could -- or should -- do about it.
By making such unreasonable demands, China even made the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate -- who favors eventual unification -- take an opposing stand.
Taiwan's involvement with the Olympic torch relay seems to have flickered and died in this process, which provides further fuel for local election campaigns. If the torch finally does pass through Taiwan, a lot of people will display the Republic of China flag and other flags offensive to Beijing. How ironic if images were to appear in the international media of police tussling with the public because the government would not allow them to display their flag.
Beijing may have tried hard to study public opinion in Taiwan, and more than once it has said that it pins its hopes on the Taiwanese public, but judging from its actions, it is clear that it doesn't have the first clue about what drives the Taiwanese.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS