一九九四年十月十三日，時任駐美代表魯肇忠向美國在台協會理事主席白樂崎（Nat Bellocchi）致函道：「我很榮幸通知您，我方政府已經正式決議將我駐華府辦公室命名為駐美國台北經濟文化代表處。」

一九九四年十二月二十日，白樂崎回函魯肇忠確認收到「告知駐美辦公室由北美事務協調委員會更名為駐美國台北經濟文化代表處」的訊息。

一九九○年十月三日，在一封寫給美國國家安全顧問史考克羅夫（Brent Scowcroft）、代理中央情報局執行秘書長彼特曼（James R. Pittman），以及國防部執行秘書長杜比亞（John A. Dubia）上校的信函中，美國國務卿芮效儉（Stapleton Roy）寫道：「因美台僅保持非官方關係，美國政府不再稱呼台灣為『中華民國』—一個反映台北持續宣稱其為中國政府的名詞—我方僅稱台灣為台灣。」

每年台灣雙十節前，芮效儉的用詞會在美國務卿向全球各地大使館與領事處的備忘錄中重現：「國務院提醒各駐外單位，因美台僅保持非官方關係，美國政府並不稱台灣為『中華民國』、『中華民國在台灣』，或是一個國家。美國政府僅稱台灣為台灣。」

我們因此有美國在「台」協會以及「台灣」旅行法。

那為何代表處稱為「台北」經濟文化代表處，而非「台灣」經濟文化代表處？

據我了解，當華府於一九九四年向台北要求一份新的頭銜清單，以取代北美事務協調委員會時，台灣政府並沒有提出任何一個包含「台灣」的選項，即使芮效儉早於一九九○年便提出「我們僅稱台灣為台灣」。

很明顯地，因為有「台北」，台北經濟文化代表處的名字無法彰顯其性質。它製造了一個該代表處僅代表台灣首都台北的印象。依此邏輯，與台北經濟文化代表處相呼應的「美國在台協會」應為「華盛頓在台協會」。

在此台美關係進入到前所未有的良好狀態的時刻，本人謹代表FAPA全體會員誠摯建議台灣政府，勇敢地踏出第一步，指出現在的台灣民情政局已大大不同於一九九四年，並主動向美方提出改名之要求。本人也代表全體會員要求美方政府排除中國反對的歪理，正視此正名的要求，使台灣駐美代表處的名稱與美國駐台代表處的名稱，符合現狀和對等原則。

這是美國尊重事實，改變台北駐美代表處名稱為符合美國政策的「台灣代表處」的時候了！

這個鼓舞人心的前例，將使其他國家跟進仿效。

原文刊載於自由時報（2018/8/23）

The post 從「台北經濟文化代表處」到「台灣代表處」 appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.

In a letter dated Oct. 13, 1994, then-representative to the US Benjamin Lu (魯肇忠) wrote to then-American Institute in Taiwan chairman Nat Bellocchi: “I take great pleasure in informing you that my government has formally approved that the name of our Washington office will be Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States.”

Two months later, on Dec. 20, Bellocchi responded, acknowledging receipt of the letter “informing me of the change in name of your office from the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA) to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO).”

In a letter dated Oct. 3, 1990, then-US Department of State executive secretary J. Stapleton Roy had written to then-US national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, then-CIA acting executive secretary James Pittman and then-US Department of Defense executive secretary Colonel John Dubia, saying: “Consistent with the unofficial nature of US-Taiwan ties, the US Government [USG] no longer refers to Taiwan as the ‘Republic of China’ — a term reflecting Taipei’s continuing claim to be the government of China… We refer to Taiwan simply as Taiwan.”

Roy’s verbiage is repeated every year in a memo that the U.S. Secretary of State sends to all its embassies and consular offices around the world prior to Taiwan’s National “Double Ten” Day, where the Secretary of State writes: “The Department reminds posts that, consistent with the unofficial nature of US -Taiwan ties, the U.S. Government does not refer to Taiwan as the “Republic of China,” the “Republic of China on Taiwan,” or a country. The USG refers to Taiwan simply as “Taiwan.”

We therefore have an “American Institute in TAIWAN” and a “TAIWAN Relations Act.”

So why is TECRO called the “Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office” and not the “Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office?”

I understand that in 1994, when Washington asked Taipei for a short list of new names to replace the oddly nondescriptive CCNAA (mis)nomer, Taipei did not submit a possible new name for its representative office with the word “Taiwan” in it — despite Roy stating in 1990 that “we refer to Taiwan simply as Taiwan” in US guidelines.

The TECRO name is nondescriptive, as it has the word “Taipei” in it, which creates the impression that the office only represents the capital and its residents.

It would be the equivalent of referring to the American Institute in Taiwan as the Washington Institute in Taiwan.

It is time that the US started adhering to reality by changing TECRO to a name that is consistent with US policy: the Taiwan Representative Office. It would set an inspiring precedent for other countries to emulate.

This article is first published in Taipei Times (2018/8/17)

The post Name change could be inspiring appeared first on Formosan Association for Public Affairs.