A post by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Facebook page administrator about the absence of the term “Republic of China” (ROC) on the nameplate of the nation’s representative office in Somaliland has again renewed the debate about whether “Taiwan” or the “Republic of China” is a more fitting designation for the nation.
The post was met with raging criticism from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which puts the ROC title on a pedestal, prompting a statement by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) assuring that the term “ROC” is not a redundancy and that bringing the “ROC (Taiwan)” to the global stage is essential to the nation’s diplomatic efforts.
Tsai’s stance shows that, as much as some people in the pan-green camp have longed to do away with the long-outdated ROC title, it is not going away any time soon.
The way in which Tsai refers to the nation has quietly changed from “ROC, Taiwan” — as seen in a letter of congratulations on the establishment of twin city ties between Yilan and Rockville, Maryland, last year — to “ROC (Taiwan).” Which designation the government puts in parentheses becomes a critical question, as different expressions will have different connotations in the international arena.
The current nomenclature used by the Tsai administration suggests that it regards “ROC” as being more significant, whereas the name “Taiwan” is parenthetical, almost an afterthought.
The use of parentheses implies that rather than scrapping the ROC title, the administration would opt for a middle-of-the-road approach — for which China will likely struggle to find a legitimate reason to protest.
Given that the two names are likely to coexist for the foreseeable future, it would behoove the government to get its priorities straight and review its use of parentheses. It should consider whether it wants to promote “Taiwan” or “the ROC” on the global stage, as the latter is too close to China’s official title and has limited Taiwan’s international space for decades.
When considering that Tsai has referred to herself as the “president of Taiwan” at several international events, the answer to that question becomes crystal clear.
The “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait has imposed many restrictions on efforts to help the nation achieve self-determination, to the extent that Taiwanese dare not even pass a referendum calling for the national sports team to compete in the Olympic Games under its proper name.
Moreover, the ruling party has refrained from removing the phrase “unification of the nation” from the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which is an internal law of which the removal would not have any measurable effect on China.
By comparison, formulating a meaningful and memorable designation for the nation is subtle and therefore more likely to succeed. This, coupled with a pair of motions passed by lawmakers last month calling for the redesigning of passport covers and fuselages of China Airlines aircraft to include more Taiwanese motifs, would greatly help the nation distinguish itself from China.
Reversing the order of “Taiwan” and “ROC” would be a minor change, but it would have a profound effect on helping the nation gain international visibility, and is worth the government’s every effort.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS