The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ reaction to various diplomatic developments is leading many to question the validity of the so-called “diplomatic truce” touted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and wonder whether it might not be a pretense for a surrender of sovereignty.
The latest example came in remarks by the ministry earlier this week in response to BirdLife International’s decision to change the Taiwanese chapter’s name from “Taiwan” to “Chinese.”
Most likely the result of pressure from Beijing, the non-governmental organization (NGO), a wild bird protection agency, changed the Taiwanese chapter’s name from Wild Bird Federation Taiwan to Chinese Wild Bird Federation.
In response, ministry spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said on Monday that because this organization is an NGO, the ministry could not interfere in its decision to change the name, adding that the group had been called Chinese Wild Bird Federation when it was established in 1988 and had only changed its name in 2000.
The ministry’s failure to act is dispiriting.
If rationalizing inaction is policy at the ministry, then Taiwan might as well abandon plans to join international organizations in a way that would uphold its dignity — that is, under its real name — because one thing is certain: Beijing is not about to stop applying pressure on global organizations, governmental or otherwise, to strike the name “Taiwan” from each and every one of them.
Beijing’s oppression of Taiwan is nothing new and at every turn it has endeavored to shoot down Taipei’s efforts to join organizations that require statehood. But if the ministry’s latest stance is any indication of future developments, all those who have worked to create space for Taiwan by joining NGOs under a name worthy of the nation have been served one hard kick in the guts.
Rather than criticizing Beijing for its relentless pressure on others to downgrade the status of Taiwan — something that any party even remotely interested in reciprocating Taipei’s recent efforts at peacemaking would have done — the ministry bent over backwards and used doublespeak to defend China while leaving Taiwanese NGOs in the ditch.
Active diplomatic work is needed to ensure Taiwan’s existence and rightful place in the world. However, when a country’s foreign ministry sounds more like a Ministry of Surrender than a government body in charge of protecting the country’s interests abroad — especially when that country faces a threat to its very existence — it is only a matter of time before the name “Taiwan” drops off the map altogether.
Ironically, what our spineless Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn’t seem to realize is that if it continues in this direction, it could eventually find itself without a job, or at best become a mere provincial government agency with little say over international affairs.
Surely this cannot be what the hundreds of ministry officials who worked hard to make a career in international diplomacy are hoping for.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS