Feb. 27 marked the 35th anniversary of the US-China Communique issued in Shanghai in 1972.
The communique laid the foundations for the US' "one China" policy, stating that: "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position."
The problem is that today, 35 years later, great changes have occurred in the cross-strait situation, and more than 60 percent of Taiwan's population identify as Taiwanese.
Therefore, insisting on applying the communique's "one China" framework to the present day is inappropriate and furthermore is a challenge to the "status quo."
The recent name-change campaign is not aimed at breaking the "status quo."
Rather, it is a means of ensuring that this country's peaceful democracy remains that way.
Identification with Taiwan has long transcended the political divide.
This is a natural result of the public's strong identification with this country.
Last September, the Chinese newspaper Oriental Sports Daily described Taiwanese New York Yankees pitcher Wang Chien-ming (王建民) as a "Chinese" pitcher, immediately drawing strong criticism from Taiwanese baseball fans. This kind of dissatisfaction has nothing to do with Taiwanese independence, but Taiwanese identity.
If Taiwanese ultra-marathon specialist Kevin Lin (林義傑), who recently completed a trek across the Sahara Desert, were to be identified as a "Chinese" ultra-marathon specialist by Chinese and international media, many members of the public would again feel upset and protest.
Again, this would be unrelated to the issue of independence; instead, it is all about a natural and strong sense of national identity.
I am certain that the old English name for Taiwan's central bank did not help other countries think it was Taiwanese, and the same problem applied to discarded names for state-owned firms. We must give serious consideration to the cost of continuing to use confusing names for other companies.
This danger was well described by Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Yu Shyi-kun when he warned against "showing good will to the death."
When Taiwan goes all out to provide aid to diplomatic allies and Third World nations, the fact that the "Republic of China on Taiwan" is abbreviated to "China" makes locals think that the aid is provided by China, and not Taiwan.
Furthermore, even if the service and safety record of China Airlines, for example, were to achieve a reputation as among the world's best, the fact that many international passengers continue to mistake it for a Chinese airline means that Taiwanese are still not be able to take pride in their national carrier.
It is those who oppose these changes who are out of touch. These opponents should explain why Taiwan cannot proceed with the changes, rather than demand that proponents explain why it should be done.
In other words, these opponents should explain why it is necessary to use the name "China."
This is much more sensible than requiring supporters of the name-change campaign to explain why we should use the name "Taiwan."
Lo Chih-cheng is the director of the department of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS