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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS