Of all the Cabinet agencies, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) is perhaps the one most overshadowed by the nation’s long-existing national identity struggle of Taiwan versus the Republic of China (ROC), regardless of which party is in power.
It is not difficult to understand why.
The nation’s ties with some of its 18 remaining diplomatic allies were formed when the ROC was still ruling China and long before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retreated to Taiwan, its “temporary base,” in 1949.
Therefore, as much as some Taiwanese hate to admit it, several nations the government calls its formal diplomatic allies — such as Guatemala, Nicaragua and the Vatican — established their relations with the ROC, not Taiwan.
That is why, while some of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Cabinet members have managed to tactically avoid references to the ROC in their day-to-day business, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot afford the luxury and has to continue using the ROC in its formal engagements.
However, how to address the nation is not the only dilemma the national identity struggle has caused the ministry.
Another major challenge is whether the ministry should put Taiwanese culture or Chinese culture — one of the important legacies of the ROC — at the forefront, a decision that has a more profound impact than some might think.
Within the ministry on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei, some meeting rooms and hallways are adorned with Chinese landscape paintings.
Classical Chinese elements are also present in some of the ministry’s gifts to foreign dignitaries.
These things might seem trivial, but they could send a dangerous and misleading message to foreign guests that Taiwanese still think they are best represented by Chinese culture, despite the diverse cultures in Taiwan, and that the nation is culturally inseparable from China.
Such perceptions could weaken and undermine the ministry’s rejection in the international arena of Beijing’s “one China” framework and its claim that Taiwan is part of its territory, adding to the nation’s already dire international predicament.
Fortunately, people have started to notice the problem, thanks to a growing realization that for Taiwan to gain full independence from China, it ought to, first and foremost, attach greater importance to local culture, rather than clinging to the illusion instilled in them by the KMT that Taiwanese are the proud inheritors of the legacy of thousands of years of Chinese history.
Minster of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), who took over the ministry in February, made it a policy goal in his first 100 days in office to introduce new gifts for dignitaries that better epitomize Taiwanese culture.
That the ministry chose to mark the 100th day of Wu’s inauguration on Tuesday with the unveiling of seven of the new “Taiwanese” gifts, as well as redecorating the hallway of the main floor where ministry officials receive foreign guests with works by Taiwanese artists, serves as further evidence that such reinvention is to be continued by the ministry.
As Wu’s policy adviser, Kate Hung (洪慧儒), told the media at Tuesday’s ceremony that the essence of diplomacy is introducing the nation to the world and offering outsiders a better understanding of its culture.
Nearly 70 years have passed since the ROC and the brutal KMT regime were forced on Taiwanese — it is about time to move on from the colonizer’s culture and to start telling Taiwan’s own stories.
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his