The name of the national Olympic team has been debated since the 1970s, when the question of who represents “China” first arose in the international community, but critics have questioned whether yesterday’s referendum on changing the team’s name to “Taiwan” would be fair to athletes.
While the Olympic Charter does not specifically prohibit a name change for a national Olympic committee (NOC), it does say that the name “must reflect the territorial extent and tradition of its country and shall be subject to the approval of the NOC Executive Board.”
The International Olympic Committee follows UN conventions and views Taiwan as part of China. It would certainly disqualify the team if its name were to be changed, especially as Chinese sports administrator Yu Zaiqing (于再清) is one of four vice presidents on the committee. But would a name change go against athletes’ interests? If the national team was disqualified, Taiwanese athletes could attend as independents, or, arguably, they could join China’s Olympic team, if so inclined.
A discussion thread on the Web site Quora argues that the Olympics are used as a political platform. One user cited how US athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith protested against racism at the 1968 Mexico Olympics, capitalist countries boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the communist bloc boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Another cited 1970s “ping-pong diplomacy,” in which the US and China exchanged table tennis players. From a Chinese perspective, sports and politics have long been inextricably linked.
Participation in the Olympics brings international exposure to a nation and the acquisition of medals brings a nation honor. Sending athletes to compete internationally is a source of great pride.
However, competing under a name that does not represent the athletes overshadows that pride with humiliation. A win for “Chinese Taipei” does not mean as much as a win for “Taiwan,” as most people in this nation regard themselves as “Taiwanese.” This has been shown in polls over the years.
Proponents of the name change do not intend to keep athletes from participating in the Olympics, or other international sporting events. They hope that it would serve as a first step toward the normalization of international relationships. Referendum supporters hope that the nation’s name could be changed, but as the Referendum Act (公民投票法) disallows this, they seek to take any step that they can.
In the interim, the name “Taiwan” would make it clear what country the athletes are representing, as most of the world knows the de facto independent nation of the Republic of China as “Taiwan.”
“Chinese Taipei” confuses people who are not familiar with the nation’s complicated political situation.
Opponents of change have argued that Taiwan should maintain the “status quo” in cross-strait relations, even though a “status quo” is illusory.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has said that she seeks to maintain the “status quo” and aims for peaceful relations with China, but since Tsai took office, China has made unilateral moves to Taiwan’s detriment. The nation must respond, or its freedoms will continue to be eroded.
Taiwan must wholeheartedly seek the normalization of its relations with the world. Changing the national team’s name would be a small but important first step.
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS