As if the status of Taiwan were not confusing enough to the outside world, inconsistency from President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration as to how the country should be referred to on the international stage often compounds the problem.
In most instances, the Ma government has been content with Taiwan participating in international events under the designation “Chinese Taipei.” In fact, the administration has depicted such a designation at the WHO’s World Health Assembly (WHA) as a great accomplishment and a direct result of its “flexible” diplomacy.
Officials in the Ma government like to tell us that how the nation is referred to at international events is not as important as its ability to participate in the first place.
However, there have been other occasions in which the government took offense at the use of “Chinese Taipei.” The latest such instance involves the country of origin given to the Taiwanese production Seediq Bale (賽德克巴萊), which premiered last week in Venice, Italy.
Following complaints by Taiwanese officials over the initial designation of the movie as a “China, Taiwan” production, festival organizers decided to go with the Olympic formula and, likely expecting this would close the matter, changed the name to “Chinese Taipei.”
No sooner had the change been made on the event Web site than Taiwanese authorities said the concession was still unacceptable and that the country of origin should be “Republic of China” or “Taiwan.”
One could hardly blame festival organizers for wondering why a government that in previous instances had portrayed the use of “Chinese Taipei” as a diplomatic coup would now be irate when the exact same designation was adopted.
At least two considerations could explain this behavior. One is that at forums such as the WHA, Taiwan was in a position of weakness and the price of admission was the dilution of its name in a way that was regarded as permissible by Beijing, which acts as a gatekeeper when it comes to Taiwan’s participation. Had Taipei insisted on Taiwan participating under the name “ROC” or “Taiwan,” it is unlikely Taiwanese officials could even have entered the building in Geneva, Switzerland.
Given that Taiwan already had participated at previous film festivals, it did not need to make similar compromises to be allowed in. Another factor is that the name controversy over the highly anticipated movie occurs as the campaign for the January presidential and legislative elections is about to begin. No doubt the elections are forcing the Ma camp to show determination on Taiwanese identity and it calculated that the cost of doing so in terms of its relations with Beijing would be relatively benign.
For those who know little about the complexities and contradictions that surround Taiwan’s sovereignty, such inconsistency must be puzzling to no end and could easily make Taiwanese officials come across as perennial malcontents.
Whether Ma’s flexible diplomacy and willingness to compromise on how Taiwan is referred to will succeed in the long term at ensuring this nation maintains its international space remains to be seen. Regardless, there is no doubt that such flip-flopping on the name issue is sowing confusion abroad, much as a strobe light makes it difficult for the onlooker to clearly size up an object in motion.
While some could argue that the rigidity Ma’s predecessor insisted on when it came to references to Taiwan prevented the nation from engaging the international community at some forums, at least that insistence made it clear to the entire world that Taiwan was Taiwan, nothing more and nothing less.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS