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.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS