Republic of China at the Olympics

The Republic of China (ROC) participated in its first Summer Olympics in 1932 under the name of China. After the Chinese Civil War, the ROC retreated to the island of Taiwan, and only Taiwan-based athletes have competed on its behalf since then. The ROC protested the 1979 Nagoya Resolution by boycotting the 1976 Summer Olympics. That continued until the ROC competed under the deliberately-ambiguous name Chinese Taipei in the 1984 Winter Olympics. China also took part in the Opening Ceremony of the 1924 Summer Olympics, but its four athletes, all of whom were tennis players, withdrew from competition.[1]

For the team representing the People's Republic of China, see China at the Olympics. For the team representing Taiwan (ROC), see Chinese Taipei at the Olympics.
Republic of China at the
Olympics
IOC codeROC
NOCChinese Olympic Committee[lower-alpha 1] (1922–1960)
Republic of China Olympic Committee[lower-alpha 2] (1960–1981)
Medals
Gold
0
Silver
1
Bronze
1
Total
2
Summer appearances
Other related appearances
 China (from 1952)
 Chinese Taipei (from 1984)

Medal tables

Medals by Summer Games
Games Athletes Gold Silver Bronze Total Rank
1932 Los Angeles10000–
1936 Berlin540000–
1948 London310000–
Total0000–

Nagoya Resolution

Overview

The Nagoya Resolution brought about the participation of the PRC in Olympic Games activities by designating that the Republic of China would be identified as Chinese Taipei and any identifying flag, anthem, or emblem used in Olympic activities would be without symbolism to show the existence of the ROC and demonstrate its sovereign nation status.[2]

A number of previous IOC actions enabled the IOC to include both the PRC and the ROC in Olympic activities despite the attempts by the former to argue that the ROC identity be as a subordinate branch of the PRC NOC. The PRC objected to the ROC NOC having that designation because it included the word "national," and the PRC did not recognize it as a nation. The solution to that issue was the IOC Charter provision that a country or nation designation could also include geographical area, district, or territory. The 1997 revision of the IOC charter reinforced the legitimacy of some form of a ROC NOC being recognized, as the IOC Charter (Article 31.1) was clarified to define the term "country" as an independent state with international recognition.[2]

Also, a retroactive action to remove recognition of an existing NOC was prohibited by a 1996 IOC Session action.. Nevertheless, the PRC sought to equate the status of the ROC NOC with that of the Hong Kong NOC (in line with the PRC's assertion that neither Hong Kong nor Taiwan are independent states), and the IOC charter prohibited any subordinate territory from acting on its own without authority from its country's NOC. The ROC NOC reasserted its independent spirit by bidding for the 2010 Asian Games and the Olympic Games. Both were rejected, but the ROC bid for the World Games in Kaohsiung was accepted. It is interesting to understand that according to the policy that the PRC attempted to reinforce, Macau would have the right to an IOC-recognized NOC, but although the ROC and Hong Kong NOC's existed and were recognized previous to 1997, Macau's NOC has never been recognized by the IOC.[2]

The ROC NOC took the issue to a Swiss court, but the case was dismissed."[3][4][5]

Resolution language: French and English versus Chinese

The official use of French and English to compose the Nagoya Resolution made its translation in Chinese a quandary when it came to the 1990 Asian Games, as expressed by the IOC member from the PRC. He Zhenliang said that the PRC had always translated "Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee" as Zhongguo Taibei Aoweihui (中国台北奥委会) and the ROC translated it as Zhonghua Taibei Aoweihui (中華台北奥委會). There was no problem when both the ROC and PRC were involved in the same event in other Chinese-language countries, as the names would be spelled phonetically according to the host language. However, the 1990 Asian Games in Beijing resurrected the issue over the one Chinese character that was differenti in each name: the PRC translation of "Zhongguo" (中国) and the ROC translation "Zhonghua" (中華).[2]

He believed that the actual objection by the ROC was that acceptance of the PRC interpretation was tantamount to being "roped into a local organ of the Zhongguo Olympic Committee." He said that the PRC decided that the principle of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan," was not involved and agreed to the ROC name interpretation.[2]

Torch relay route

The ROC sought to differentiate itself from the PRC when the torch relay route was announced for the 2008 Summer Olympics; The ROC insisted that the route both entering and exiting the ROC could not be directly from or to PRC territory, as that might give the impression that the ROC was part of the PRC.[2]

Notes
  1. See Chinese Olympic Committee#Timeline concerning Olympic recognition and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee#History.
  2. See Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee#History.
gollark: Are iron doors air-sealed?
gollark: If I join I'll just have to reshape mine into a flying brick with more airlocks.
gollark: Are the "claw" bits at the front good for anything but obscuring vision?
gollark: There's still the possibility of, say, weapon strikes on the bridge, and it's beneficial to put it in a central location.
gollark: Anyway, even in scifi a bridge at the front makes little sense.

References
  1. M. Avé, Comité Olympique Français. Les Jeux de la VIIIe Olympiade Paris 1924 – Rapport Officiel (PDF) (in French). Paris: Librairie de France. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 May 2011. Retrieved 16 October 2012. 39 seulement s’alignérent, ne représentant plus que 24 nations, la Chine, le Portugal et la Yougoslavie ayant déclaré forfait.
  2. http://hnn.us/article/51398#sthash.04ZCBpL4.dpuf; George Mason University History News Network: Susan Brownell, "Could China stop Taiwan from coming to the Olympic Games?"; original source: Minutes of the Executive Board meeting, Nagoya, Japan, 23-25 October 1979, p. 103; viewed August 26, 2014.
  3. The Times, January 17, 1980
  4. "Taiwan requests meets court folly; Swiss gives Peking go-ahead". The Spokesman Review. 1980-01-16. Retrieved 2011-09-23.
  5. "Swiss court dismisses Taiwan case". Bangor Daily News. 1980-01-16. Retrieved 2011-09-23.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.