According to the Webster's dictionary, the status quo is defined as "the existing state of affairs." This means that the status quo is not stagnant but changes with time and circumstance; otherwise it becomes a past state or history.
Since the US cut off diplomatic ties with the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, US officials consistently have been calling the country "Taiwan." Secretary of State Colin Powell once called Taiwan the "ROC" -- only by mistake.
Ironically, even the State Department official who opposed the proposed name rectification to "Taiwan" presumably used the term "Taiwan." The US has "American Institute in Taiwan," "Taiwan Relations Act" and so on, all named after Taiwan.
These names are clear and precise. If they were misnamed as "Washington Institute in Taipei," "Chinese Taipei Relations Act" or "China Relations Act," there would be a lot of confusion and misinterpretations. These are the very reasons why the name rectification to "Taiwan" is urgently needed.
The Taiwanese have suffered enough from so many historical or improper names imposed on the country. They will be happy to see "Taiwanese Institute in the US," for example.
The US, China and the rest of the world all call Taiwan "Taiwan." This is multilateral and universal. Why can't Taiwan call itself "Taiwan?" After all, this name reflects the true status quo.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS