In the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the international community, which largely follows a “one China” policy, was mostly oblivious to the fact that Taiwan’s health and medical network is in no sense subordinate to that of China or even connected to it. By pretending that Taiwan is part of China, many countries effectively allowed Taiwan to become orphaned from international health and medical networks.
In the process of controlling the coronavirus, Taiwan was for a time dragged down by China. It was treated as part of the outbreak zone and made subject to travel bans or restrictions by countries such as Italy.
Later on, China wanted to declare victory in the fight against the pandemic, but Taiwan was still discovering imported cases of COVID-19 among citizens returning from abroad. To claim that it had achieved zero new cases, China took the “bold step” of excluding Taiwan from its COVID-19 statistics.
It can be seen from this that even though China uses the rhetoric of “one China” to promote its unification strategy, it sees “one China” as dispensable under certain circumstances.
As for Taiwan, China sees it as a toxic issue that causes nothing but trouble.
Taiwan should exert the same boldness in its interactions with the international community as China did when excluding Taiwan. When deciding what to call itself, it should avoid using language that could cause confusion about Taiwan’s separate identity.
“Taiwan and China — one country on each side” is not so much an independence slogan as an accurate description of reality. For Taiwanese to call themselves “Taiwan” in their dealings with the international community does not symbolize Taiwanese independence — it merely reiterates the reality that Taiwan is not governed by China.
Changing the nation’s title in the Chinese language would involve amending the Constitution, but that does not mean that Taiwan can only use one name in English. In its foreign relations, the nation can follow the principle of highlighting “Taiwan” when naming itself in foreign-language documents, while doing its best to avoid formulas that are too similar to those of China.
This would help to ensure that the international community clearly recognizes the political reality that Taiwan and China do not own or rule one another.
For example, Taiwan does not use the title “Republic of China” when it takes part in international sports events or WTO meetings. These are all technical details of the way that administrative documents are translated into foreign languages. They also constitute a pragmatic approach to events concerning foreign relations that does not involve amending the Constitution or altering the cross-strait “status quo.”
Taiwan cooperates with the international community. Its performance as an outstanding member of the international community has been clear for all to see during the course of the pandemic and China cannot be allowed to steal Taiwan’s limelight.
As for China, its neglect of its duties as a member of the international community has attracted widespread condemnation, as has its dreadful record on human rights.
Hopefully the Taiwanese government will seize this rare opportunity and make good use of all available possibilities to make the international community clear about Taiwan’s sovereignty and independent status, while drawing a clear line between Taiwan and China.
Liu Chi-wei is a lawyer and director of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,