|
EDITORIAL: Lack of
consistency sows confusion
As if the status of Taiwan were not confusing enough to the outside world,
inconsistency from President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration as to how the
country should be referred to on the international stage often compounds the
problem.
In most instances, the Ma government has been content with Taiwan participating
in international events under the designation “Chinese Taipei.” In fact, the
administration has depicted such a designation at the WHO’s World Health
Assembly (WHA) as a great accomplishment and a direct result of its “flexible”
diplomacy.
Officials in the Ma government like to tell us that how the nation is referred
to at international events is not as important as its ability to participate in
the first place.
However, there have been other occasions in which the government took offense at
the use of “Chinese Taipei.” The latest such instance involves the country of
origin given to the Taiwanese production Seediq Bale (賽德克巴萊), which premiered
last week in Venice, Italy.
Following complaints by Taiwanese officials over the initial designation of the
movie as a “China, Taiwan” production, festival organizers decided to go with
the Olympic formula and, likely expecting this would close the matter, changed
the name to “Chinese Taipei.”
No sooner had the change been made on the event Web site than Taiwanese
authorities said the concession was still unacceptable and that the country of
origin should be “Republic of China” or “Taiwan.”
One could hardly blame festival organizers for wondering why a government that
in previous instances had portrayed the use of “Chinese Taipei” as a diplomatic
coup would now be irate when the exact same designation was adopted.
At least two considerations could explain this behavior. One is that at forums
such as the WHA, Taiwan was in a position of weakness and the price of admission
was the dilution of its name in a way that was regarded as permissible by
Beijing, which acts as a gatekeeper when it comes to Taiwan’s participation. Had
Taipei insisted on Taiwan participating under the name “ROC” or “Taiwan,” it is
unlikely Taiwanese officials could even have entered the building in Geneva,
Switzerland.
Given that Taiwan already had participated at previous film festivals, it did
not need to make similar compromises to be allowed in. Another factor is that
the name controversy over the highly anticipated movie occurs as the campaign
for the January presidential and legislative elections is about to begin. No
doubt the elections are forcing the Ma camp to show determination on Taiwanese
identity and it calculated that the cost of doing so in terms of its relations
with Beijing would be relatively benign.
For those who know little about the complexities and contradictions that
surround Taiwan’s sovereignty, such inconsistency must be puzzling to no end and
could easily make Taiwanese officials come across as perennial malcontents.
Whether Ma’s flexible diplomacy and willingness to compromise on how Taiwan is
referred to will succeed in the long term at ensuring this nation maintains its
international space remains to be seen. Regardless, there is no doubt that such
flip-flopping on the name issue is sowing confusion abroad, much as a strobe
light makes it difficult for the onlooker to clearly size up an object in
motion.
While some could argue that the rigidity Ma’s predecessor insisted on when it
came to references to Taiwan prevented the nation from engaging the
international community at some forums, at least that insistence made it clear
to the entire world that Taiwan was Taiwan, nothing more and nothing less.
|
