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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS