Celebrations for the 100th anniversary of the Republic of China (ROC) are ongoing, so why do I say Taiwanese should wise up and muster the courage to get over the whole ROC issue? There is a long list of reasons, but I will only cite a few here.
First, the ROC has never gained the recognition of the international community, which recognizes only “one China” — that is, the administration in Beijing as the sole legitimate government of China. This decision was made in October 1971, when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2758.
The international community refers to us as Taiwan and not the ROC. If we want Taiwan to become a country, we should use the word “Taiwan” at all times to refer to ourselves, and not “Chinese Taipei,” which means “Taipei that belongs to China.” Nor should we have a national title that includes the name “China,” because the international community has no idea what the “ROC” means.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration are focused on eventual unification with China and making the 100 years of ROC history part of Chinese history, just like the Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties. If Taiwan continues to be associated with the ROC, it will become a part of China. Even worse, both the governments of the ROC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) support the idea that Taiwan is a part of China and accept the “one China” principle.
I hope that we and our children and grandchildren will not have to continue to live in this fictional ROC. Many Taiwanese cannot even name the capital of the ROC, which Ma would probably tell us is in Nanjing. Few Taiwanese have ever visited this so-called “capital” of their “republic.” Nor is there a need to say that the ROC’s territory includes the two UN members of the PRC and Mongolia.
It is rather embarrassing when people use the phrase wo guo (我國, our country) and talk about the vastness of the nation’s territory. Small wonder many Taiwanese still look down on their homeland and view the place where they grew up as a “small island.”
“The ROC” is not a nation built by us or our ancestors. It is therefore no wonder that the people of Taiwan have been forced to defer to the ROC officials that came over after World War II or any official that China sends over.
Our ancestors had to live through the 228 Massacre and the White Terror era, but now the government is using its resources to protect the safety and dignity of visiting Chinese officials. This is all happening because we were forced to accept a prefabricated government and have had to embrace a nation that we had no part whatsoever in building.
Chen Wen-hsien is a professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of History.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS