Foreign
ministry won’t play Beijing’s name game
By Shelley Shan
STAFF REPORTER, WITH CNA
Friday, Jul 11, 2008, Page 1
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said yesterday that the government would
never accept translating the name of the country’s sports teams as “Taipei,
China.”
“The foreign ministry and the Mainland Affairs Council [MAC] have insisted that
the name ‘Chinese Taipei’ cannot be translated as ‘Taipei, China,’” ministry
spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) told a regular press briefing.
His statement came one day after Yang Yi (楊毅), spokesman for China’s Taiwan
Affairs Office, said that “Chinese Taipei” — the name used by Taiwan’s Olympic
Committee at international athletic events — can be translated as both Zhongguo
Taibei (中國台北, “Taipei, China”) and Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北, “Chinese Taipei”).
Yang said that while the Beijing Organizing Committee of Olympic Games (BOCOG)
would use Zhonghua Taibei at venues and on printed materials, this did not
necessarily apply to other organizations, groups or individuals.
He said it should not be seen as belittling Taiwan if people outside the BOCOG
translated “Chinese Taipei” as Zhongguo Taibei, “as this translation is also
acceptable.”
Yang’s remarks triggered widespread speculation that Beijing was trying to
belittle Taiwan.
MAC Vice Chairman Chang Liang-jen (張良任) took issue with Yang’s remarks on
Wednesday, saying that “Chinese Taipei” was the name agreed upon by the Olympic
committees of both Taiwan and China in 1989 and that the government was firmly
opposed to the use of “Taipei, China.”
Chen said the foreign ministry respected MAC’s stance because the council is in
charge of cross-strait affairs.
As to what name should be used internationally, Chen said the foreign ministry
was mainly concerned with professionalism, functionality as well as maintaining
the principles of pragmatism and flexibility.
Meanwhile, the Sports Affairs Council (SAC) said yesterday that the government
would not boycott the Olympics because the agency that reported Yang’s comments
was a non-governmental organization. Therefore, it would not recognize his
comments as an official gesture to lower the status of Taiwan.
In an official statement, the SAC rejected the idea that the Chinese government
was entitled to translate “Chinese Taipei” as Zhongguo Taibei.
An agreement signed in Hong Kong in 1989 stated that athletic teams or
organizations representing Taiwan would follow IOC regulations when
participating in the sports competitions in China, the SAC statement said.
That agreement specified that Taiwan would be referred to as Zhonghua Taibei in
Chinese characters in any of the Games’ publications or public information,
including brochures, invitation letters, athletic badges and media broadcasts.
“If both sides had agreed that the Chinese government could translate the
official title of the Taiwanese team however they wanted, then why was there a
need for negotiations in the first place?” the statement said.
“If both sides settled on Zhonghua Taibei, then no one can say the Chinese
government has the unilateral right of translation. Nor is this an issue of
interference from third parties,” it said.
“This would be an issue if any side has unilaterally violated terms of the
agreement,” the statement said.
The SAC said that Taiwan would avoid a confrontation, given that cross-strait
negotiations had helped improve relations.
It was unnecessary for China to take advantage of Taiwan over such a petty
thing, it said.
“The move will only serve to create doubts, misunderstandings and disgust among
the people of Taiwan,” the statement said. “The Chinese government should also
educate the public during the Beijing Olympics about the content of the Hong
Kong agreement, rather than using its same old tricks.”
At a separate setting yesterday, DPP Legislator Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯) slammed
Beijing for trying to downgrade Taiwan.
“It is no surprise that the Chinese government is becoming more aggressive
toward us because President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) does not fight back,” he said.
Tsai said the athletes’ order of appearance during next month’s opening
ceremonies could provide another chance for China to belittle Taiwan, “and
create an impression for the world that Taiwan is a part of China.”
Clash of views on
Ma
I read with interest one of your editorials published this week (“Is Ma the
‘Manchurian Candidate?’” July 8, page 8). I am concerned that the rather
ambiguous wording of your piece may have made it look like it is my personal
opinion that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has finally adopted Beijing’s views
and will do what it wants him to do — that he has become, as your paper put it,
“Beijing’s man in Taipei, who will open the gates of the castle and bring about
the dream of annexation.”
I would like to clarify that this is not my view. I believe that Ma does have a
rational strategy that puts Taiwan first. The Ma administration came into office
on a platform of making improvements in cross-strait relations one of its top
priorities, but also promised to strengthen Taiwan’s bilateral relations with
other states, to campaign for membership in international organizations and to
harden Taiwan’s defense capabilities.
I am disappointed, however, that putting cross-strait relations before foreign
and defense policy has allowed the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to interpret
Ma’s acceptance of the so-called “1992 Consensus” as meaning that Taiwan is part
of the PRC and that his victory merely represents a defeat of the “forces of
Taiwanese independence.” Before the presidential election, there were
indications that the PRC was prepared to make some concessions to Taiwan and
even begin what could have been an exciting rethinking of its views on
sovereignty and national identity and giving Taiwan more international space.
Instead, we see a continuing lack of flexibility over key issues such as
Taiwan’s membership in the WHO, while the modernization of the People’s
Liberation Army’s missile forces opposite Taiwan is worrying. In this context
the beginning of direct air links is only a modest achievement.
It is still early for the new administration, however, and foreign and defense
policy might well unfold in ways that can balance the pressure from the PRC.
While I would certainly not label Ma the “Manchurian Candidate,” there will
always be a need for Taiwan to balance cross-strait policy with a clear message
to the PRC and the international community about what the people of Taiwan want
in terms of its international status. I am sure that this will emerge in time.
Christopher Hughes
London School of Economics
Editor’s note: Dr Hughes’ comments were sourced from a piece by Tania Branighan
in the Guardian newspaper (carried by the Taipei Times as “Welcome, and please
don’t spit,” July 6, page 2) in which Hughes is quoted as saying: “Their
[Chinese officials and academics] way of thinking was: ‘Taiwan’s come to our way
of thinking; Ma’s going to do what we want him to’ … The question is: What is
Taiwan getting out of this?” It was not the Taipei Times’ intention to attribute
those views to Dr Hughes.
I have followed the human rights and the political situation in China since Mao
Zedong (毛澤東) died in 1976. I have visited China on three occasions and Taiwan
six times. I have had two private audiences with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and
spent many hours with Chinese dissidents Wei Jingsheng (魏京生) and Fang Lizhi
(方勵之). Falun Gong world spokesman Zhang Er-ping is a good friend of mine. I have
talked in person with former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) as well as former
Democratic Progressive Party chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄).
There is no doubt that the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party under
former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) is one
of the most brutal and cruel in the world today. It harasses, imprisons,
tortures and kills its own people. It is systematically destroying the culture
and religion in Tibet. A bamboo gulag of political prisoners stretches across
the vast reaches of China. Organ harvesting from living Falun Gong prisoners was
widespread until exposed by Canadian investigators. It should therefore be no
surprise that Beijing lies, cheats, spies and steals. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s
vibrant, transparent and successful democracy continues to be a major and
festering thorn in Beijing’s side.
I am sure I am not the only one to have noticed that since the Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT) government was installed in May, cross-strait tensions
have thawed faster than a polar ice cap. Bilateral offices are being mulled,
face-to-face meetings scheduled, direct flights launched and business
opportunities expanded.
Like a wily fisherman using Lien Chan (連戰) as bait, Beijing has hooked President
Ma Ying-jeou (or rather, as Beijing would have it, “Taipei’s Mr Ma”) long before
the election. Now they are just playing with him. When the time is right,
Beijing will reel him in and issue an ultimatum that will significantly
compromise Taiwan’s sovereignty and dignity. If Ma gives in, Taiwanese will rise
up in outrage. If he balks, they will see that he was taken for a fool.
The level of espionage will also likely increase along with the flood of new
“visitors” from China.
China does not need missiles or military force to assimilate Taiwan. All it
needs is to make Taiwan (“Chinese Taipei” in the KMT lexicon) a dependent
economic colony and threaten a fatal economic earthquake by abruptly severing
all business ties. If this occurred, Taiwan would fall to its knees before its
master.
Former president Chen Shiu-bian (陳水扁) understood all this and acted accordingly.
The good people of Taiwan will need to remain alert, hyper-vigilant and
outspoken in the months and years ahead.
William Cox
Nome, Alaska