The US House of Representatives’ Committee on Foreign Affairs on July 15 introduced the Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement (EAGLE) Act.
The act, if passed by the US Congress, would provide powerful support for Taiwan, including a requirement that the US secretary of state enter negotiations with the Taiwan Council for US Affairs to rename the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington to the “Taiwan Representative Office.”
The effort to rename Taiwan’s representative office in Washington has long been a priority for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ (MOFA) US diplomats. Taiwanese based in the US, as well as Taiwanese lobbying groups, have expended a great deal of money and effort over the years, diligently working toward this goal.
With the relationship between Taiwan and the US riding high, this presents a golden opportunity for advocates in Washington and Taipei to seize the initiative and rename Taiwan’s representative office.
Washington breaking off formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979 marked Taiwan’s lowest point on the international stage. At the time, I had just taken the national civil service exam and entered MOFA’s ranks as a fresh recruit with the Department for US Affairs. The Taiwan Relations Act, passed by the US Senate in April that year, established the American Institute in Taiwan.
The Executive Yuan reciprocated by establishing the Coordination Council for North American Affairs to handle non-official relations with its estranged ally.
However, many Taiwanese were confused by its name and could not comprehend the role or function of this new organization.
In 1994, the administration of US president Bill Clinton carried out a review of policy regarding Taiwan. One of the requirements stemming from the review was that Taiwan’s representative office in Washington change its name to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, which is still in use to this day.
However, the Taipei headquarters continued to be called the Coordination Council for North American Affairs up until August 2019, when it was renamed the Taiwan Council for US Affairs. Following four decades of glacial progress, a few tentative steps were taken toward reflecting reality.
It is yet to be seen whether the EAGLE Act, the latest in a line of Taiwan-friendly legislation proposed by the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Foreign Affairs, becomes law, but it is undoubtedly a reflection of continued universal cross-party congressional support for Taiwan.
This precious support, which began with the administration of former US president Donald Trump and has continued under US President Joe Biden, is founded upon several facets: the US’ Indo-Pacific geopolitical strategy, core trust, economic cooperation and high-tech supply chains. Deepening trust and solidifying the “rock solid” relationship between the two countries requires consistency, continuity and predictability. Taiwan should take advantage of the warming relationship to push for the renaming of its representative offices.
Among high-level officials in the Biden administration responsible for setting the US’ Taiwan policy — whether working for the White House, National Security Council, Department of State or other government departments — there is no shortage of sober and rational people who, if not “pro-Taiwan,” then at least have an intimate understanding of Taiwan and its geostrategic importance.
While such people take the US national interest as a starting point, they are familiar with the Indo-Pacific region and the complex triangular relationship between Taiwan, China, and the US. For this reason, they do not engage in wishful thinking nor make emotional judgments.
Renaming Taiwan’s representative office in Washington would not only reflect reality and the current state of affairs, recognizing the significant relaxation of contact restrictions, it would also reflect the greater decisionmaking space in Washington and the increased appetite for resisting pressure from Beijing. Additionally, cross-party support in Congress bolsters the argument for renaming the representative office.
In 1995, I took over as director of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Atlanta. We sent out invitations, written in English, for the traditional Double Ten National Day banquet with “Taiwan” appended to “Republic of China (ROC).” This caused a sensation back home. I received a severe dressing down from my superiors and was promptly transferred to another post. This was the only time I received disciplinary action during my four decades in Taiwan’s diplomatic corps. To this day, I have a clear conscience and bear no grudge.
At the time, I was criticized for causing a diplomatic incident, “using verbal sophistry and twisted logic,” and for being “unrepentant.”
A general order was issued to all of Taiwan’s representative offices around the world, which stated that if important dignitaries or other local individuals are uncertain about the distinction between the ROC and the People’s Republic of China, and require the addition of “Taiwan” to clarify that “this China” is not the “other China,” the representative office need not have dealings with such ill-informed people or invite them to representative office functions in the future.
For the past quarter of a century, the argument has been made that “the time is not right” or that it would be “politically incorrect” to rename Taiwan’s representative office in Washington.
My intention regarding the Double Ten National Day banquets was merely to highlight Taiwan’s view. Today, all of Taiwan’s representative offices and civic organizations enthusiastically employ creative methods to promote Taiwan as a democratic partner, charitable nation and force for good around the world.
Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation whose official name, according to the Constitution, is the Republic of China. As the nation navigates the international stage and strives to elevate its status among countries with whom Taiwan does not have a formal diplomatic relationship — of which the US is the most important barometer — the time is right, after more than 40 years, to respect the dignity of our distinct identity and rename our representative office in Washington the “Taiwan Representative Office.”
Stanley Kao was Taiwan’s representative to the US from 2016 to 2020.
Translated by Edward Jones
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS