In anticipation of the 2012 Olympic Games in London, the Regent Street Association hoisted the flags of all the countries scheduled to attend the Games, including that of the Republic of China (ROC), along Regent Street, one of the busiest and most famous shopping streets in the British capital.
However, this simple welcoming gesture triggered strong objections from China. Finally, bowing to political pressure, the association took the ROC flag down.
On the face of it, China seems to have won the day.
However, this rather crude behavior has gained Taiwan more international sympathy, as well as free publicity for the nation’s cause.
When the incident was reported in British and European newspapers and online, people from different nations were largely supportive of Taiwan’s case.
The BBC initially displayed the ROC flag for Taiwan on the Olympic section of its news Web site, although it did eventually replace it with the flag for “Chinese Taipei.”
Without a doubt, China has avoided losing face in this particular case, but at what cost?
For the sake of its pride, China has sacrificed a large amount of the goodwill that exists between Taiwan and China, breeding more resentment among Taiwanese. At the same time, Beijing has shown the international community what lies behind its facade.
Taiwan is just a small country and the odds are good that the majority of people living outside of Taiwan would not have been able to pick out the ROC flag from the other lesser-known national flags flown in Regent Street. If it had been left flying undisturbed above London’s bustling Regent Street, hardly anyone would have noticed it.
However, thanks to China’s protestations, the ROC flag was displayed in a multitude of foreign media outlets and now a larger number of people are aware of what it looks like.
The important point is that the more China pressures Taiwan regarding its international status, the more people in other countries will feel that it is not appropriate for Beijing to do so.
I once had a conversation on this topic with a cab driver from Cambridge when I was on a trip to the UK. He was a refined-looking English gent who told me that he did not believe many educated British people actually believe Taiwan is a part of China. I have heard similar sentiments many times before from foreigners I have spoken to.
While it is true that China’s approach on this issue will, for the time being at least, make the governments of different countries around the world, purely out of a concern for political repercussions, play ball with China, it is quite clear that it will not win the argument on the streets and in the bars of these countries.
A recent opinion poll showed that as much as 80 percent of Taiwanese do not believe that unification with China is necessary. This suggests that Taiwanese do not strongly identify with China, or even have a favorable impression of it.
It is unfortunate that the Chinese authorities, so sure of their own intelligence, do not seem to be aware of this rather gaping hole in their plan. Instead they just continue to use these rather unwelcome methods in their treatment of people they refer to as “Taiwanese compatriots.”
Should the Chinese authorities continue along this path, the antipathy Taiwanese feel toward China is only going to get stronger.
Hsu Yu-fang is a professor of Sinophone literature at National Dong HwaUniversity.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US