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Tsai’s stance shows that, as much as some people in the pan-green camp have longed to do away with the long-outdated ROC title, it is not going away any time soon.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.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS