A recent controversy over the use of the word “Taiwan” at an event in Taipei City has highlighted the absurdity of China’s sensitivity to the name and cast doubt on the city government’s commitment to upholding the nation’s dignity.
With the Denver Nuggets and the Indiana Pacers in Taipei this week for exhibition games, preparations were under way at the Taipei Arena ahead of the first game today.
But a banner on the side of the stadium to welcome the US National Basketball Association (NBA) teams was changed at the last minute to replace the word “Taiwan” with the word “Taipei.”
Another victory for Beijing — on Taiwan’s own turf.
The sign that read “Taiwan Welcomes the NBA” became “Taipei Welcomes the NBA.”
This change could only be intended as a gesture to China, signaling that the city hopes to avoid controversy.
It gives the impression that the Taipei City Government and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are more than happy to avoid the name “Taiwan.”
While the city government would be right to want to promote city pride by emphasizing that the capital is hosting the event, it is highly doubtful that this was the motive.
Hosting basketball games with athletes of this caliber is an exciting event for fans of the sport across the country — not just in Taipei. From this perspective, changing the sign was dismissive of the enthusiasm of fans outside the capital.
The episode showcases how often the name “Taiwan” is avoided and, sadly, how little this seems to bother the public.
During election campaigns, or when leaders seek to improve their image in the wake of a scandal or administrative failures, it is common to see politicians don sports uniforms, vests or caps bearing the word “Taiwan.” They make a point of using the word “Taiwan” or “Taiwanese” throughout campaign speeches.
By showing a bit of “Taiwan” pride, politicians hope to bridge the distance between themselves and their constituents — and often they succeed in convincing the latter that their show is genuine.
It is intriguing, then, to see these same politicians drop the word “Taiwan” when they have an excellent opportunity to raise the nation’s visibility at international events.
While Taipei deserves to be rebuked for casting the name “Taiwan” aside at its convenience, the public must realize that it plays a role in such abuses by failing to demand that their leaders stand up for the name. Avoiding the word “Taiwan” is harmful to the nation’s dignity.
The public permits leaders and politicians to treat the word “Taiwan” as disposable. In doing so, it allows its leaders to be disrespectful.
Unless the public demands better of its politicians, it cannot expect to have leaders willing to uphold the nation’s dignity and work toward increasing its international visibility.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS