|
|
|
`Chinese
Taipei' on Sep 01, 2004 Rest
in peace, `Chinese Taipei' The
long-simmering controversy over Taiwan's national title and national dignity was
brought into the open at the Athens Olympics. At the historic moment when two
Taiwanese taekwondo athletes stepped onto the podium to receive their gold
medals, our country suddenly became "Chinese Taipei" -- the music that
was played was not our national anthem and the flag that was raised was not our
national flag. Yet the athletes saluted. With this absurd situation happening
twice in the space of minutes, how could a reasonable person not feel
consternation at the absurdity of it all? To
avoid confusing its American audience, NBC television clarified each time the
name was used that "Chinese Taipei" referred to Taiwan. Japanese and
South Korean television were more impatient and simply dropped "Chinese
Taipei" altogether in its reports, using "Taiwan" instead. It
is therefore pleasing to note that apart from China, media outlets from almost
every other country are willing to refer to the nation as Taiwan. But it is
galling that media outlets back home and Taiwan's officials insist on using
"Chinese Taipei." The flag with the Olympic rings, the plum blossom
and the symbol of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is not our national flag,
nor is the National Flag Song our national anthem -- yet there is an intriguing
and disquieting willingness to accommodate them beyond the practicality of
athletes being accepted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). There
will be greater complications in 2008, when the Olympics are held in Beijing.
Taiwan's national title and its dignity will be compromised. In Athens, Taiwan
placed advertising in the airport and on city buses using both "Chinese
Taipei" and Taiwan to increase international recognition, but pressure on
the Greek government from China forced the withdrawal of the advertisements,
despite the fact that their presence was the result of a perfectly legal
financial transaction. It
is evident from all this that four years from now China will be most unwilling
for us to use either "Chinese Taipei" or "Taiwan," and will
accept only "Taipei, China" -- a name that puts us in the same
category as "Hong Kong, China" and "Macao, China," which are
in fact Chinese administrative districts. China
will only be content when Taiwan adopts a title that represents an acceptance of
its own obliteration. Its attitude is so obvious that the public here and
reasonable people in the international community will begin to wonder whether
Beijing can be trusted not to turn the Olympics into a sledgehammer for its
ultranationalist agenda. In
the meantime, using the name "Chinese Taipei" is as laughable as
referring to the US as "America, Washington." It is meaningless. It
is highly unlikely that the IOC will accept a change of name for Taiwan before
the next Games, but why should the IOC be held responsible for this in the first
instance? Any
campaign pushing for a name change has to begin with our own media, officials
and the people on the street. Only if the nation learns to use
"Taiwan" to refer to itself -- and on the international stage in
particular -- will China's tremendous opportunity to humiliate us at the next
Olympics be hindered.
Republicans
back Taiwan POLICY
STATEMENT: Despite having several nice things to say about Beijing, the party
adopted a platform that affirms the US' pledge to defend Taiwan if it is
attacked By
Charles Snyder The
US Republican Party on Monday adopted a platform that delivered a strong
endorsement of close relations between Washington and Taipei, and reiterated its
pledge of four years ago to come to Taiwan's aid "in accordance with the
Taiwan Relations Act" if Taiwan is attacked by China. The
platform, which was approved on Monday by the party presidential nominating
convention in New York, recognized that the US maintains a "one-China"
policy, and endorsed the Bush administration policy of opposition to any moves
to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. The
platform contains an extended commitment to support of and friendship with
Taiwan. "Republicans
applaud President [George W.] Bush and the Republican Congress for honoring our
nation's promises to the people of Taiwan, a longstanding friend of the United
States and a genuine democracy," the platform says. "Taiwan
deserves America's strong support, including the timely sale of defensive arms
to enhance Taiwan's security," it adds. The
document noted that the US government policy is "that there is one China,
as reflected in the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. America
opposes any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status
quo." It
also recognizes that US policy is based on the principle that "there must
be no use for force by China against Taiwan. We deny the right of Beijing to
impose its rule on the free Taiwanese people." The
party demanded that all cross-strait issues "must be resolved peacefully
and must be agreeable to the people of Taiwan." If
China attacks, "then the United States will respond appropriately in
accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. America will help Taiwan defend
itself," the platform says. With
the exception of the admonition against changes in the status quo, much of the
wording of the document copies directly the text of the party's 2000 platform. That
might have been at the root of confusion in Washington over the weekend, when
e-mails reached many Taiwan correspondents presenting the 2000 platform as the
draft of this year's policy document, after the new document was approved by the
party's platform committee. Stories
about the "new" platform were published in several Chinese-language
Taiwanese newspapers before the error was discovered. The source of the error
appeared to be the party's official convention Web site, which retained the old
document in its platform page without dating the document. Platforms are not
binding but remain party policy until changed. The
GOP policy statement is in sharp contrast to the Democratic Party platform
adopted in late July, which contained only a passing reference to Taiwan.
The
empty talk of Singapore By
Daniel McCarthy The
recent supplication of Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to Beijing
comes as no surprise. Singapore has a long and consistent tradition of
suppressing human rights and democracy among its own people in the interest of
maintaining a dictatorship and advancing commercial interests. It should be no
surprise that Singapore's leader would be willing to verbally sacrifice Taiwan
in order to curry favor with a companion dictatorship that represents a major
market. Anyone who reads the Straits Times cannot mistake the continued
anti-Taiwan, pro-China tirade that Singapore's leading newspaper echoes. But
we can easily see that Lee's words are empty. He stated that no European or
Asian country would recognize an independent Taiwan. How can he know this?
Certainly he does not. He was only making the statement to placate the frothy,
emotional ultranationalism that has reared its ugly head in Beijing these past
few years. That part of Lee's statement, and probably the rest as well, can be
relegated to the junkyard of political propaganda. But
if we look at the substance of the situation, we see that Singapore has built
facilities to service aircraft carriers, obviously for US use. And Singapore has
an agreement to provide logistical support to the US military in times of
conflict, without regard to the identity of the other parties in the conflict.
Further, both Singapore and the US are basing equipment and supplies in northern
Australia for joint use in a Pacific conflict. Singapore has tied its security
completely to the US, so if the US defends Taiwan, Singapore will follow. Although
we know that Singapore will help the US defend Taiwan if fighting breaks out, it
is nonetheless disappointing that Singapore's freshly crowned prime minister
does not have the character to stand by the free and democratic people of Taiwan
in words as well as action. Daniel
McCarthy
The
US isn't so pure By
Philip Wallbridge Chen
Ming-chung's letter criticizing Australia's China policy (Letters, Aug. 27, page
8) is another worrying example of an unbalanced, moralistic American opinion. Although
Chen claims the US does not support China's oppressive policies, he cleverly
disguises the fact that the US
doesn't oppose its policies either. US President George W. Bush also
"sucked up" to China by describing it as a "great nation"
and bowed to Chinese pressure by not supporting Taiwan's referendum when Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao visited the US at the end of last year. The
true test of a government and a nation's character comes when the principles of
freedom and democracy are tested against the desire for wealth. Despite
preaching "global democratic revolution," the US is seemingly prepared
to sacrifice Taiwan's chance for freedom in return for greater business with
China. Is
this a good example to set? When will the US judge itself as critically and by
the same standards as it judges others? Philip
Wallbridge
|
|
|
