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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS