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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS