In April 2019, an art installation of an upturned globe, entitled The World Turned Upside Down, by Mark Wallinger was unveiled outside the London School of Economics and Political Science. It caused an uproar, leading to university authorities asking Wallinger to make a change to the sculpture and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lodging a complaint with the university over its decision.
The controversy stemmed from the artist’s use of a different color to represent Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Chinese students complained that the suggestion that Taiwan was not part of the PRC was offensive.
Was it all a storm in a teacup? The Chinese students did not think so. Nor did the ministry. Maps matter. They are a visual representation of an accepted version of territorial claim.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been changing maps and issuing new — Chinese — names for land in Tibet, and disputed areas on the border between China and India. It has also been aggressively pushing the notorious “nine-dash line” — now expanded to the “10-dash line — extending Chinese territory well beyond the maritime waters regarded as belonging to the PRC in international law, igniting sovereignty disputes with Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
Its insistence on Taiwan being represented as PRC territory on maps is another example of the delusion that led to the Chinese nationals’ response to Wallinger’s globe.
The changing of names and rewriting of maps percolate in the background, infiltrating public and institutional awareness of territorial understanding and laying the groundwork for pushing territorial claims in legal initiatives and historical accounts. State recognition of other states might not be overtly and directly impacted, but it is a mistake to underestimate the power of the narrative underpinning the concept.
It is within this context that we must understand the “Honest Maps” amendment passed by the US House of Representatives on Friday last week, which bans the US Department of Defense from creating, buying or displaying any map showing Taiwan or its outlying islands as part of the PRC.
Calling the US’ “one China policy” “an antiquated and dishonest policy,” US Representative Tom Tiffany, who proposed the amendment, said that it would ensure US maps reflect the reality that “China is China, and Taiwan is Taiwan.”
While we rankle at the lack of recognition of the reality of Taiwan’s sovereign and independent status in any aspect other than the reality-distortion bubble that the CCP enforces upon the world with its “one China principle,” we do recognize the realpolitik necessity of other nations paying lip service to the policy even when their actions suggest they believe, and proceed, in the full realization that Taiwan is not subordinate to the PRC or the CCP in any way. We do this while having to continually emphasize, as US officials have started doing with more clarity and regularity, that the US’ consistent position on its “one China” policy is to “acknowledge,” not “recognize” the PRC’s territorial claim over Taiwan. That is, “we know you think that, but we don’t.”
There is no need to provoke the CCP into having a truculent fit over members of the international community explicitly clarifying the real nature of their relationship with Taiwan or their understanding of its sovereign, independent status. What Taiwan needs to do is to work to ensure that their indulgence of the CCP’s distortions do not impede Taiwan’s activity in the international space, and that the situation is not allowed to advance to a point in which the CCP perceives military action to be the only option available, when all of its appeals to fake history and fabricated cartographical details have been disregarded by governments that prefer to conduct their relations in the real world.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
RSS