Taiwanese civic groups campaigning to have the national team compete at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics under the name “Taiwan” instead of “Chinese Taipei” had a rude awakening after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) dismissed the matter even before a formal appeal could reach committee members.
So much for the Olympic spirit.
Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee secretary-general Shen Yi-ting (沈依婷) on Saturday said that IOC president Thomas Bach on May 2 called a meeting of the IOC executive board, and that the Taipei committee on May 5 received a letter from the IOC stating that it would not approve any changes to the name that Taiwan uses to participate in the Olympic Games.
With this swift dismissal, the IOC unwittingly painted the calls for Taiwan’s participation in the Games under the name “Taiwan” as illegitimate, which is regrettable.
As if it were not frustrating enough that Taiwanese athletes have to compete in international sports events under the ridiculous appellation of “Chinese Taipei,” the IOC has added insult to injury by reaching a verdict without trial, so to speak.
People who say that the campaigners should not stir up trouble by mixing politics with sports seem to have forgotten that the very reason Taiwan has been subjected to using the ridiculous name “Chinese Taipei,” in line with the so-called Olympic model, is due to China’s political manipulation.
An appeal to the IOC for a name change is not without precedent: The Netherlands in 1992 changed the name of its Olympic team from “Holland” to “The Netherlands.” So why was the IOC so quick to reject Taiwan’s appeal without even hearing its case?
It would be no surprise if the China element was involved in the IOC’s decision, as Beijing does not miss a chance to belittle Taiwan in the international arena. It would be a shame if the IOC were revealed to be toeing Beijing’s line to reject calls by Taiwanese.
IOC members might need a refresher course on the Olympic Charter, as one of the “Fundamental Principles of Olympism” states that “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Of all the nations competing in the Olympics, Taiwan is the only one whose athletes cannot compete under their own nation’s name, sing their national anthem or bear their national flag in the Parade of Nations.
Granted, this is the result of an agreement reached in 1981 between Taiwan and the IOC that only the name “Chinese Taipei” and only the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee flag can be used at Olympic Games, but that does not mean that Taiwanese athletes should forever be subjected to such a demeaning arrangement without the right to seek amends.
By rejecting even the right to make a formal appeal, the IOC has essentially denied Taiwanese athletes the right to bring honor to their nation, whose official title is the Republic of China, although it is more commonly known as Taiwan.
However regrettable the IOC’s decision might be, the government is not without blame. The Olympic model does not require that Taiwan’s Olympic committee must also use the name “Chinese Taipei.” When reviewing amendments to the National Sports Act (國民體育法) that were passed in September last year, the Democratic Progressive Party-controlled legislature dropped a clause that would have changed the body’s title to the “National Olympic Committee,” getting rid of the absurd name of “Chinese Taipei” at home at least.
Since the government cannot even correct a misnomer regarding an agency under its control, how could anyone convince IOC members that they have made a mistake?
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath