One day after Beijing pressured other members of the East Asian Olympic Committee into stripping Taichung of its right to host the first East Asian Youth Games in August next year, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) officially confirmed speculation that the move was in response to a referendum proposal on Taiwan’s national sports team competing under the name “Taiwan” rather than its usual appellation of “Chinese Taipei” at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
Lauding what he called the right decision by the committee, TAO spokesman An Fengshan (安峰山) on Wednesday told reporters in Beijing that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration has connived with proponents of the referendum drive, which he said blatantly challenges the “Olympic model.”
The “Olympic model” refers to a protocol signed between Taiwan and the International Olympic Committee in 1981 in which Taiwan has to compete in the Olympics under the name “Chinese Taipei” and is represented by the Chinese Taipei Olympic flag at Olympic events.
If China’s goal through this political move was to quash and discourage pro-Taiwanese independence forces, what it has achieved is the opposite.
The decision to revoke Taichung’s right to host the East Asian Youth Games — which would have been the first within the Olympic family hosted by Taiwan — after the city has invested more than NT$677 million (US$22.1 million at the current exchange rate) in planning and building facilities for the event is arguably one of the biggest Chinese-orchestrated international humiliations Taiwan has suffered over the past few years.
Before the latest setback, public resentment toward China had already been on the rise due to a series of provocative moves by Beijing, including pressuring international airlines into changing their designation of Taiwan, poaching diplomatic allies and blocking Taiwan from attending the annual World Health Assembly.
Opinion polls have suggested that Beijing’s moves to suppress Taiwan would be followed by an increase in the public’s negative perception of China and a desire to see a tough response from the government.
What makes the revocation of the Games deal particularly difficult to stomach is that in the past, Beijing’s provocative actions were mostly aimed at punishing the DPP government for what it believed were attempts to change the cross-strait “status quo.”
However, the referendum proposal it cited for its latest move was launched by a civilian — track and field Olympic medalist Chi Cheng (紀政).
Perhaps the idea of a referendum seems too foreign for authoritarian China, but it is a democratic tool that allows the public to decide issues that concern them. The government has no control over what issues are raised in a referendum proposal, nor does it have the power to nip proposals not to its liking in the bud.
Beijing was barking up the wrong tree when it tried to blame the referendum proposal on the DPP administration. The DPP might share the aspiration of the referendum’s proponents to see the nation’s athletes compete under the name “Taiwan,” but there is a difference between sharing ideas and acting on them.
Before China’s latest provocation, the referendum drive did not appear to have a good chance of succeeding, as it was still 200,000 signatures shy of the about 280,000 needed for it to become official.
However, thanks to the Games incident, the campaign has received free publicity and has become a venue for angry Taiwanese to vent their fury at China.
If the referendum proposal is passed, its proponents will have China to thank.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs