President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) opened the 2009 World Games in Kaohsiung in his capacity as president of the Republic of China (ROC) at the invitation of International World Games Association (IWGA) chairman Ron Froehlich last week. It was the first time in many years that Taiwanese were able to cheer and wave ROC flags at an international sports event.
The Presidential Office sought to downplay its significance, saying it was only normal for the president of the host country to open an international event. Ma’s followers went a step further by saying that it was the result of the president’s hard work improving cross-strait relations.
China’s relatively low-key response to Ma opening the Games is not evidence that cross-strait relations have improved. Neither does any improvement in cross-strait relations mean it was only natural for Ma to open the Games as the president of the ROC and that the audience could wave the ROC flag. Indeed, prior to the start of the Games, the IWGA was under pressure from Beijing and thought a Chinese official — not Ma — should open the World Games. Many still remember how Froehlich was angered by the display of an ROC flag at the press conference to launch the World Games theme song last year. Thus it was hard work — rather than par for the course — that allowed Ma to open the Games and let ROC flags into the venue.
Past experience shows that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seem to consider it a matter of course that, at any international event held in China or Taiwan, symbols that signify or imply Taiwanese sovereignty have to be removed. This was the case when former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), as well as incumbent KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) visited China, and when Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) visited Taiwan last year.
When Ma served as Taipei mayor, the public even clashed with police over the ban on displaying ROC flags at a sports meeting. Frequent clashes between the public and police have only strengthened public sentiment on this issue. On Oct. 25, 600,000 people demonstrated to express their dissatisfaction with the government’s attitude. And on Nov. 6, Chen was stuck in a Taipei hotel as protesters demonstrated outside.
If not for these two incidents, if Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) had not called Ma “the president of our central government” during her visit to China, if the World Games were not held in a city with a Democratic Progressive Party mayor, and if Chen Chu had not striven to communicate with the IWGA, Ma would not have opened the World Games, nor would the audience have been waving ROC flags. However, even after Chen Chu called Ma “the president of Taiwan” in China, neither KMT members nor Chinese authorities followed suit.
The public used to think of the KMT as the party that spared no effort to protect national symbols such as the flag and the presidential title, while the DPP did the opposite. However, this only seems to apply to domestic politics. At international events, it is the DPP that safeguards these symbols, while the KMT tries to avoid or even remove them. This change in attitude has even affected KMT supporters. As such, although DPP members have fought for their right to wave the national flag at the World Games, very few of them do, and so only a few ROC flags are seen at the World Games.
Chen Chu worked hard to break the old routine and helped the president maintain his dignity. It is therefore ridiculous to say — like Ma did — that it was normal procedure.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS