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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS