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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS