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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS