After visiting Taiwan a few years ago, some journalists from New Zealand said their biggest regret was the government's refusal to call itself by the name "Taiwan" -- despite it clearly being an independent country. But the nation's official representative offices across the world continue to use other names, confusing allies and friends and undercutting national dignity.
Take, for example, the name of Taiwan's delegation to the WTO. Its title is the "Permanent Mission of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu." Taiwan's representative office in Hong Kong is called a "travel service," and its office in London was once called the Sun Yat-sen Cultural Center. Dignified, indeed.
It is necessary, therefore, to standardize the names of Taiwan's official representative offices and state-run companies in order to clearly distinguish them from those of China.
When the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government broached the introduction of a new constitution and the amendment of the national title, many people said -- all too predictably -- that this was like walking a tightrope, provoking China by implementing a unilateral change to the cross-strait "status quo."
Those raising such questions now seem to include officials from the US Department of State. Yet there can be no doubt that the Taiwanese public is determined to see that peace prevails. The current problem, therefore, is how to adjust the currently unstable situation and help the international community get a clearer picture of this country without attracting too much opposition from less sympathetic countries.
There is no need for the State Department to be so nervous. It seems that as soon as Taiwan mentions a new constitution or title of convenience, their officials fear a declaration of independence is imminent. Taiwanese democracy operates on the strength of the same mechanisms as many other democratic countries. All matters concerning national sovereignty must be approved by the legislature, so President Chen Shui-bian (
Changing the names of state-run enterprises, on the other hand, is a purely domestic matter and the US has no basis on which it can interfere. As for the names of private enterprises, not even Taiwan's government can interfere with such commercial decisions.
Attempts to change the name of Taiwan date back to 1979 when the Taiwan Relations Act came into force. At that time the KMT even protested that the name Taiwan was being used to refer to the Republic of China (ROC). So, if "Taiwan" is now used to stand in for "ROC" in other contexts, the US really has no reason to object. If it does, it might be usefully asked to refer to its own law books.
There is nothing unreasonable about a new constitution that redefines this nation's territories as those which it actually controls, namely Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Similarly, any reasonable person would welcome the name "Taiwan" as a replacement for all of the peculiar titles under which this country has labored so that people can differentiate between Taiwan and China at a glance.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS