If the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the US could be renamed to include “Taiwan,” the change would support Lithuania’s difficult decision to host a “Taiwanese Representative Office” and prompt other allies to follow suit.
The Financial Times on Friday reported that US President Joe Biden’s administration is “seriously considering a request from Taiwan” to change TECRO’s name to the “Taiwan Representative Office,” and that US National Security Council Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific Kurt Campbell has backed the change.
Renaming TECRO is one objective that Taiwanese diplomats have been striving for over many years, and it has garnered support from US lawmakers.
In December last year, 78 members of the US House of Representatives wrote to then-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo to request that TECRO change its name, new guidelines for governing the interactions of US and Taiwanese officials and a bilateral trade agreement.
The Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement Act, passed by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in July, and the Taiwan Diplomatic Review Act, introduced by some US lawmakers in May, also advocated for TECRO’s name change.
The Biden administration in April lifted certain restrictions governing US officials’ interactions with their Taiwanese counterparts, marking a leap in improving bilateral ties. By comparison, renaming TECRO without changing its status would be less troublesome.
Some Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) members said renaming TECRO would not advance Taiwan-US relations in any concrete way, and warned the Democratic Progressive Party government to brace for any backlash from Beijing if TECRO’s name is changed.
Compared with negotiating a trade agreement, renaming TECRO might be a small, symbolic step, but the change could consolidate Washington’s leadership among democratic allies.
Beijing is applying political and economic tricks to pressure Lithuania into reversing its decision to host a Taiwanese representative office. If such an office is opened in Vilnius, it would be the only representative office in Europe to have “Taiwan” in its name.
There has been speculation as to whether Lithuania might flinch under Beijing’s pressure, as Guyana did in February as it retracted its decision to open a “Taiwan Office,” despite US officials having lauded the deal.
While US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman have supported Lithuania in developing ties with Taiwan, their verbal support would be more powerful if a Taiwanese representative office could sit in Washington.
If Washington worries that renaming TECRO might provoke Beijing with little gain, it could engage other allies to join its effort and make “Taiwan” offices “a new normal” across the world.
The European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs on Sept. 1 approved proposals that urge the EU to bolster political ties with Taiwan and rename its European Economic and Trade Office the “EU Office in Taiwan.”
Likewise, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, deserves a new name that better reflects its status and importance.
As the Coordination Council for North American Affairs was renamed the Taiwan Council for US Affairs in 2019, it is curious why the council’s parallel, AIT, could not be renamed in a similar way.
At a juncture when many countries are pushing back on China’s “wolf warrior diplomacy” and developing warmer ties with Taiwan, there is no better time — for Taiwan as well as for other countries — to rename the representative offices that embody their foreign policies.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent