With only days to go before the nation votes on a referendum that seeks to change the national team’s name from “Chinese Taipei” to “Taiwan” for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) sent a letter warning about the consequences of such a plebiscite.
The letter, dated on Friday, was the third of its kind sent by the IOC to the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee (CTOC) over the past six months to voice disapproval of the call for a “name rectification.”
However, it was the first time that the IOC explicitly said that any change to the team’s name could result in disqualification under Rule 27.9 of the Olympic Charter.
The letter’s obvious timing aside, the blatant attempt by the IOC to interfere with Saturday’s referendum — despite its claim that it has no intention to “interfere with local procedures” — as well as its readiness to curry favor with Beijing, proves that it does not have the leadership capabilities expected of an organization that oversees international sports events
Its attempt to interfere with Taiwan’s domestic affairs should be condemned by all democratic nations.
The IOC said that “any attempts to exercise undue pressure on the CTOC to breach the 1981 agreement and/or act against the decisions of the IOC Executive Board” could result in the disqualification of the national team, citing an agreement signed by the two bodies in 1981 in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Meanwhile, the CTOC has been playing second fiddle, urging voters to vote “no” in the referendum to avoid affecting participation in the 2020 Olympics.
It is frightening how the two committees each seem to have the ability to foretell the future and see the result of the referendum, as is their assumption that the government would suddenly forget how to make civilized decisions and pressure the CTOC into filing an application for the name change.
The glaring silliness in their words sound eerily like Beijing talking.
They might soon discover that their well-meaning worries are not only unsolicited, but also unnecessary, as it is none of their concern how Taiwanese would vote or how the government would act on the result of the referendum, if it is passed, not to mention that there are many possible ways in which the latter could be carried out.
They also seem to have forgotten that public discontent over national teams using the “Chinese Taipei” monicker was the reason for the referendum proposal.
At this point, it is anyone’s guess whether Taiwanese athletes would arrive at some kind of agreement to participate in the Games individually if passage of the referendum did lead to Taiwan’s team being disqualified, or what kind of publicity campaign the government would run to lobby for international support for the name change.
If the referendum’s outcome shows that the public demands change, open discussions need to take place to allow that outcome to run its course. The future is unwritten and it most certainly should not be decided by outsiders.
With Taiwan often hailed by observers as Asia’s most vibrant democracy, its elections have time and again drawn the attention of foreign media, academics and others.
With a record-high of 10 referendums to be held alongside the nine-in-one elections on Saturday, the world is waiting to see what choices Taiwanese will make.
That is why voters must vote for what they believe in and not succumb to external influence, for if they are too afraid to speak up for themselves, no one else will.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers