President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) decision to change the name of state-owned companies and overseas offices is to be applauded.
For far too long, state-owned companies have dragged along with them a name stemming from the middle of the previous century.
This was when they were part of the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) China-based empire: China Airlines, China Shipbuilding, Chinese Petroleum and China Steel reflected the KMT's claim to rule over all of China.
The fact that we are now in the 21st century requires a name change that reflects the present-day reality that these companies are part of the infrastructure of a new Taiwan and have no links with China.
All too often, these companies were perceived as being "Chinese," leading to an endless series of confusing incidents, such as the painful headline a few years ago that a Chinese airliner had crashed, when it was in fact a China Airlines
aircraft.
Chen's move to change the name of overseas offices is also to be welcomed: in most countries, the offices are referred to as the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office."
As everyone knows, they do more than represent "Taipei," but the rather paranoid condition of the KMT and the People First Party -- and their renewed majority in the legislature -- have obstructed an update of the reality.
The fate of these proposed changes in the wake of the pan-blue election victory remains unclear.
Still, there are some peculiar reactions to be heard around the world.
In a US Department of State press briefing last Monday, deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said -- with a straight face -- that "we are not supportive of them [the name changes]."
He added that "these changes of terminology for government-controlled enterprises or economic and cultural offices abroad" would appear to unilaterally change Taiwan's status, and for that reason Washington could not be supportive of them.
So, let us try to understand Ereli.
We cannot refer to Taiwan as "Taiwan"? We should instead continue to refer to Taiwanese companies as "China-something"?
This defies all logic, and we hope that the State Department will pull its head out of the clouds very soon.
China should actually be all too happy that Taiwan is not competing with them anymore -- whether it be for sovereignty, or a name.
Ereli also wants us to believe that changing the name of a company is somehow changing Taiwan's status.
Would this mean that changing the name of American Airlines or US Steel Corp changes the status of the US? The answer should be clear.
The situation is of course a bit different with the overseas representative offices. There we have a bit of a history to deal with.
When the US and other nations still had diplomatic ties with the KMT, these offices were referred to as an "embassy" or a "consulate."
When the KMT lost recognition as the government representing China, these offices were renamed, first to the Coordinating Council for North American Affairs, and later -- when Taipei became a bit more democratic -- to Taipei Representative offices.
So it is only logical: The names of these offices should be updated to reflect reality.
So we suggest that Chen move ahead and let Taiwan be "Taiwan."
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of the Washington-based Taiwan Communique.
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