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
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
RSS