The inevitable came to pass on Friday when Taiwan Post Co announced plans to change its name back to Chunghwa Post Co. The corporation’s chairman, Wu Min-yu (吳民佑), said that the change was in response to a resolution adopted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in April that said the company had not completed the required legal procedures.
Saying that the original process was unlawful — the bills were stalled in the KMT-controlled legislature — was a disingenuous ploy to distract attention from the real issue of why the name was changed in the first place.
When the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) changed Chunghwa Post to Taiwan Post in February of last year, Steve Chen (陳瑞隆), then-minister of economic affairs, made it clear that changing the titles of state-run enterprises would “help avoid confusion and increase Taiwan’s international presence.”
Other name changes included Chinese Petroleum Corp (CPC) to CPC Corp, Taiwan and China Shipbuilding Corp (CSBC) to Taiwan International Shipbuilding Corp. Although the DPP was justifiably raked over the coals at the time for its belated and half-baked attempts (though the word “China” was removed from the Chinese-language titles they were retained in some of the English-language acronyms), it was an effort to bring the names closer to reality.
It is fitting then that the current administration, which seems intent on diminishing Taiwan’s international presence, would go after Taiwan Post first because it is a clear manifestation, though mostly symbolic, of Taiwan’s status as a sovereign nation. It is only a matter of time before other state-run corporations follow suit.
Meanwhile, on the same day Wu made the announcement, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was patting himself on the back — again — over his Pyrrhic victory with China’s state-run media.
In a meeting at the Presidential Office with Australian Commerce and Industry Office in Taipei representative Stephen Waters, Ma said that China’s willingness to use Taiwan’s official title Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北, or Chinese Taipei) at the Olympics rather than Zhongguo Taibei (中國台北, or Taipei, China), represented a triumph and demonstrated the ability of both sides to work towards a “diplomatic truce.”
This is laughable. The very idea of a “diplomatic truce” implies that both sides are independent countries that use diplomacy to solve disputes. Beijing will use whatever language it needs to achieve its goals of unification and cares little for the concerns of Taiwan.
Or, for that matter, the international community.
It has become apparent in the past week that Beijing is backtracking on its earlier pledges to grant foreign accredited journalists unfettered access to the Internet during the Olympic games. So what goodwill can Ma expect from China?
Taken together with his recent statements about not following the tradition of the previous administration in using the name Taiwan in its bid to join the UN, it is clear that the current administration is turning back the clock on sovereignty under the paradoxical notion that it will somehow increase Taiwan’s visibility on the international stage.
But then again, the administration doesn’t seem as concerned about Taiwan’s diplomatic impasse as much as it cares about appeasing the dictators in Beijing.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations