‘Burma’ vs ‘Myanmar’
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet).
In a recent article I wrote to the editor (Letters, April 14, page 8) I was dismayed to find that the Taipei Times took the liberty of changing the name “Burma” to “Myanmar.”
Indeed, what is in a name? A name ensured a tragic end to the famous young lovers Romeo and Juliet in their quest for love.
A difference in opinion over the name of “Macedonia” guaranteed ongoing disputes between Macedonia and Greece.
A “minority”-like name promised a lifetime of discrimination for thousands of Blacks, Irish and Jews throughout the US and Europe up until the early 20th century (and even today in certain areas).
Enforced name changes saw the humiliation and cultural genocide of Aborigines everywhere, and the “wrong” names linked to a certain caste or class guaranteed a lifetime of suffering in much of South Asia.
In the case of Taiwan, the name that is selected for the country impacts on its right to participate in international organizations and its very right to existence as an independent, sovereign state.
The recent name change of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to today’s National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall certainly saw plenty of controversy.
The official name of Burma today is the “Union of Myanmar.” This was passed in 1989 by the current Burmese junta, a political act intended to justify its rule and its xenophobic, anti-West attitude.
Though many of its allies recognize this name change, some of the world’s more prominent states such as the US and the UK continue to use the name “Burma.” Even today, the US embassy on University Road in Rangoon/Yangon proudly refers to itself as the Embassy of the United States, Union of Burma.
Many non-governmental organizations and pressure groups, as well as human rights and democracy activists, also choose to recognize “Burma” and not “Myanmar.”
This is an important issue, as referring to the state as Burma guaranteed the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the Burmese state, but not of its repressive, backward and shameful military junta.
Just as the term “Chinese Taipei” is derogatory to the 23 million people of Taiwan, and just as vice president-elect Vincent Siew’s (蕭萬長) attendance at the recent Boao Forum in his capacity as a civilian chairman of the Cross-Straits Common Market Foundation was a very conscious but misguided choice, the Taipei Times’ changing of “Burma” to “Myanmar” is a disappointing, misguided and political action, which I believe is unwarranted and beyond the scope of its “reservations to edit, change, or condense” for the benefit of the paper.
For a paper dedicated to progressive, democratic ideals, I truly hope the Taipei Times will at least respect the rights of its readers when publishing their letters.
Roger Lee Huang
Taipei
Why the US should invite Ma
I enjoyed reading the letter “Go West, Mr Ma” (Letters, March 29, page 8).
The thought-provoking idea that Li Chen-ching proposed coincides with the latest development in cross-strait relations, in which vice president-elect Vincent Siew met with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and former US secretary of state Colin Powell during the recent Boao Forum in Hainan.
The optimistic comments of Mr Li and Mr Powell have inspired me to point out that Taiwan’s democracy has shed new light on China.
And it is time that the US employed a pragmatic strategy to ensure multilateral harmony by allowing president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to visit the US in a low key manner before his inauguration.
Ma’s overwhelming victory has served as a beacon of hope for the development of democracy in China.
A man with a global vision and decent qualities for a leader, Ma has been well received by the majority of the Chinese in China, including even the leaders there.
To cement a win-win-win situation in the Asia-Pacific region, the US should seriously regard Ma’s visit as a plus for everyone and therefore invite him for an informal visit as soon as possible.
Nina Hsu
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with