US Representative Byron Donalds announced legislation that would mandate federal agencies to adopt “Taiwan” in place of “Chinese Taipei,” a statement on his page on the US House of Representatives’ Web site said.
“The legislation is a push to normalize the position of Taiwan as an autonomous country, although the official US stance is not to recognize or advocate for Taiwan’s independence,” The Hill reported on Saturday last week, adding that the US rarely uses the term “Chinese Taipei.”
“There is no reason why the United States, the greatest and most powerful nation on the globe, should allow communist China to dictate the name of one of our greatest international allies,” US Representative Mike Collins, a cosponsor of the bill, said in the statement.
Given what Collins says about the US not needing to heed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in formulating its Taiwan policies, one might also ask what is stopping the US from simply recognizing the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan) as a country. This would, of course, be a departure from decades of a consistent US position on the matter, and it would not go down well in the corridors of power in Beijing.
A “two Chinas” US policy would undoubtedly draw the ire of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which would likely be forced into a position in which it has to make a far stronger response than it has thus far, far beyond conducting drills around Taiwan, uttering threats against Taipei and Washington or even simply threatening to sever ties with the US.
Beijing would be hesitant about cutting ties with Washington, as doing so would be economic suicide, but the circumstances might force its hand.
Formal US recognition of ROC would serve as impetus for other countries to do so, which in turn would encourage UN recognition of Taiwan. This would facilitate Taiwan’s inclusion in the WHO and other international organizations. Arguably, recognition would also refute any justification for a Chinese annexation of Taiwan. The CCP would still likely be undeterred in its pursuit of unifying Taiwan, despite any international decision to recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty, but any nation undecided about whether to intervene in the case of a cross-Taiwan Strait conflict might be more likely to do so if Taiwan’s de facto independence became de jure.
Donalds’ proposal is well-intentioned and is appreciated by many in Taiwan. However, as The Hill wrote, the US rarely uses the term “Chinese Taipei” and most Taiwanese would be more concerned about use of the term by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) than by the US government. Awarding Olympic medals to athletes representing “Chinese Taipei” dampens the spirits of Taiwanese sports fans, and is an affront to the hard work and achievements of the athletes who compete on behalf of their nation.
A campaign in 2018 petitioned the IOC to allow rectification of the national team’s name, but was rejected by the governing body, despite strong support in Taiwan for the change.
Perhaps Donalds and the cosponsors of the bill could add their voices to Taiwan’s petition to participate in the Olympics under the name “Taiwan” or the “Republic of China.” That could be a small step toward greater, more significant changes. Should Taiwanese be allowed to compete on the world stage using their nation’s name and flag, it could spur discussion on the issue that might lead to Taiwan’s inclusion in more international bodies.
Of course, ultimately Taiwanese must decide for themselves whether they even want de jure independence, which would require amendments to the Constitution to remove references to territory currently under the administration of the PRC. Such an amendment would constitute a unilateral change in the “status quo” on Taiwan’s part, and the government would have to take responsibility for the repercussions of choosing this path.
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
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
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS