Time to change names
China has recently named one of its destroyers the Xining (西寧) that happens to be the name of one of Taiwanese military vessels. To avoid any possible confusion, Taiwan has to change its vessel’s name to Pingtung (屏東), for example.
The Taipei Economic and Cultural Office should be rectified to the “Taiwanese institute in America (TIA)” as the counterpart of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). The UK changed the name of its envoy in Taiwan from the British Trade and Cultural Office to the British Office; correspondingly, Taiwan should have “the Taiwanese office” in the UK. The East Asia Association should be changed to “the Taiwan-Japan exchange association” to be equivalent to the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association.
Many Taiwanese cannot find their envoys, which have a variety of names, when they need help overseas. Sometimes, they are sent to Chinese envoys or even China by mistake.
The China Airlines is a name that confuses most foreigners. The airline makes free advertising for China and false advertising for Taiwan around the world. It is unimaginable that US Airways were called UK Airways or American Airlines were called British Airlines.
The China Petroleum Corporation might give many foreign customers a wrong impression that the company is a China-invested oil company in Taiwan. Its oil tankers presumably have to spend time to identify themselves correctly.
Taiwanese who carry Republic of China passports are sometimes blocked from entering some countries and banned from visiting UN facilities.
It would be a catastrophe if the People’s Republic of China dropped “People’s” from its name.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Nationalist Communist Party sound like sister parties. The name of the former is one of the main reasons that split the party.
Taiwan should use its own name — for the convenience of Taiwanese and foreigners.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing