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.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
RSS