Breaking News, World News and Taiwan News.

Updated Monday, November 16, 2009 9:31 am TWN, The China Post news staff

Sponsors
▪	Save 75% for all hotels in Shanghai, Beijing and whole China. Lowest rates for Flights in China.
▪	Get the best deals for Guangzhou Hotels or choose from more than 10,000 hotels in 499 Chinese cities.
▪	Find great real time deals on China Flights. Book flights to China or China domestic flights 24/7.
▪	Buy china wholesale products from reliable chinese wholesalers on DHgate.com!

Dispute over names shouldn't scuttle MOU

In the end, the MOU will have to be signed by both sides of the Taiwan Strait. This means that officials representing financial supervisory bodies operated by both governments will have to sign the MOU. Beijing would be wise to retract its opposition to the use of the name “Financial Supervisory Commission, Executive Yuan” — the formal title of Sean Chen's agency.

While Beijing will not sign any documents portending to support Taiwan independence, mainland China has strongly hinted in recent months that it prefers to see Taiwan preserve its government structure as the Republic of China, rather than change its names and titles. What we choose to call our own government agencies is none of Beijing's business and Sean Chen is correct in refusing to sign anything that harms the dignity of Taiwan and the ROC.

However, both sides should not let this matter snowball out of control. If Beijing really finds it too hard to swallow the innocuous title of “Financial Supervisory Commission,” then it would be best if both sides took their cue from the Kinmen Accord.

Signed on Sept. 12, 1990, by Red Cross organizations representing Taiwan and mainland China, the Kinmen Accord's preamble announced the document was negotiated by “Red Cross organizations from both sides of the Strait.” At the bottom of the document, Chen Charng-ven and Han Changlin, who at the time were chairmen of their respective Red Cross organizations, signed their names without using their titles. Interestingly, Chen dated his signature “79-9-12,” using the 79th year of the Republic of China, while Han dated his signature “90-9-12.”

Throughout this document, Taiwan and mainland China referred to each other as “one side” and “the other side,” completely sidestepping sovereignty issues so that substantial cooperation could move on.

If both sides are unable to work out appropriate titles for the MOU, they could refer to “financial supervisory authorities on both sides of the Strait” at the top of the document, while having Chen and his mainland counterpart sign their names without any titles at the bottom.

It would be nothing less than ridiculous for both sides to get mired in a name squabble at a time when the difficult details of the MOU have supposedly already been worked out. The derailing of the MOU would also halt the momentum of cross-strait relations having negative effects on warming cross-strait ties and increasing interaction and cooperation.

1|2