To most people outside of Taiwan and China, a dispute over the name of Taiwan’s Olympic team might seem petty. However, the argument has underscored an elemental point: The Games that open on Friday in Beijing may be the most politicized since Nazi German dictator Adolf Hitler sought to enlist the Berlin Olympics of 1936 as evidence of Aryan racial superiority.
Moreover, US President George W. Bush, who plans to attend the opening ceremony, will be part of that highly charged political event as the first US president ever to go abroad to the Olympics. His decision has been mildly controversial: On one hand, it gives the president an opportunity to engage Chinese leaders; on the other, it may be seen as reinforcing the oppressive rule of China’s communist regime.
Bush jumped into Olympic politics last week by welcoming five Chinese dissidents to the White House. A Chinese spokesman responded by contending the president had “rudely interfered in China’s internal affairs.”
Later, Bush told a Chinese TV interviewer: “I’m coming to China as the president and as a friend.”
Several weeks ago, Chinese authorities suggested that the team from Taiwan compete under the name Zhongguo Taibei (中國台北, or Taipei, China).” The proposal caused an uproar in Taiwan because that name, Zhongguo Taibei, implied that Taiwan was part of China, like Hong Kong or Macau.
Instead, Taiwan’s leaders, Olympic committee and press insisted that their team be called Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北, Chinese, Taipei). That form was devised in the 1980s when China demanded that international organizations not allow Taiwan to use its name, the Republic of China.
In the argument with Beijing, Taiwan even threatened to withdraw from the games, a warning that had teeth. Earlier, the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games planned to have the Olympic torch carried through Taiwan on the way to Beijing. The route made it look as if Taiwan were part China. Taiwan promptly refused. Beijing evidently decided that, after being criticized for several other issues, more bad publicity would not be helpful.
Although political leaders, Olympic committees and athletes everywhere have decried efforts to embroil the Olympics in politics, that has often been the case — and none more so than in China now.
Orville Schell, a China specialist writing in Newsweek, said that the Beijing Olympics were intended to mark the emergence of China from its “national inferiority complex” that began with its defeat by Britain in the Opium War of 1839 to 1842. This was followed by a period when the “Chinese melon” was sliced up by Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Portugal, the US and Japan.
Today, Chinese constantly remind themselves that they come from a nation with a 5,000-year history and contend that their nation is entitled the respect of a global leader. Perhaps the Olympics are that first step in the Chinese saying “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” in ending centuries of the Chinese sense of inferiority.
China appears bent on regaining its place as the “Middle Kingdom,” a concept formed in the Han Dynasty (206BC to 220AD). In that scheme, China is the center of the world and its neighbors are vassals who pay court and make no move of consequence without Beijing’s permission. Other nations, particularly those in the West, are barbarians to be fended off.
Politicizing the Olympics has a long history. Tokyo, in the first games in Asia, marked Japan’s recovery from World War II; the lad who lit the Olympic flame had been born in Hiroshima the day it was hit with the first atomic bomb. The 1972 Olympics in Munich saw Palestinian terrorists kill 11 Israelis. The US boycotted the 1980 games in Moscow to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
In revenge, the Soviet Union and its 14 satellites boycotted the Los Angeles Games in 1984. South Korea turned the 1988 Olympics into a showcase for its economic achievements. Another terrorist attack took one life and injured 110 others in Atlanta in 1996.
Sometimes, however, Olympic politics backfires. Hitler had his vaunted Aryan superiority thrown in his face by a US sprinter and long jumper named Jesse Owens — who won four gold medals in the Berlin Olympics.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS