Taiwan in the Olympics: From ROC to Chinese Taipei

Written by Marcus P. Chu.

Image credit: International Olympic Committee Headquarters (2) by Gzzz/ Wikimedia Commons, license: CC BY-SA 4.0.

While Taiwan was a Japanese colony, it did not have a national Olympic committee of its own. Taiwanese athletes thus had to join the delegations of their colonisers for the Olympics. After Taiwan became a part of the Republic of China (ROC) in 1945, the Chinese National Olympic Committee moved from Nanking of the Chinese mainland to Taipei along with the Kuomintang and the nationalist government. Consequently, Taiwanese athletes had to compete in the Olympics under the name ‘China.’ Simultaneously, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established by the communists in the Chinese mainland. It formed the All-China Athletic Federation in Beijing, tasked with managing mainland Chinese athletes’ participation in the Olympics under the name ‘China.’   

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) favoured the inclusion of both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland in its activities. The Chinese National Olympic Committee and its Beijing counterpart, however, were mutually exclusive because the authorities of ROC and PRC each claimed legitimacy to represent both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. Not surprisingly, the Chinese National Olympic Committee and Taiwanese athletes boycotted the Helsinki 1952 Summer Olympics, while the All-China Athletic Federation and mainland Chinese athletes participated. The Chinese National Olympic Committee and Taiwanese athletes took part in the Melbourn 1956 Summer Olympics, whereas the national Olympic committee in Beijing and mainland Chinese athletes withdrew.

Under this contentious situation, IOC President Avery Brundage personally sympathised with the Chinese National Olympic Committee because the UN recognised the nationalist government of ROC as the representative of China and the United States and its allies only maintained official ties with Taipei. This stance infuriated the PRC authorities and prompted the national Olympic committee in Beijing to withdraw from the IOC in 1958. 

In 1959, the Chinese National Olympic Committee was no longer recognised by the IOC, as it had been unable to oversee sporting affairs on the Chinese mainland since relocating to Taipei. The Taipei side swiftly rebranded its national Olympic committee as the ROC Olympic Committee and sought the IOC’s recognition. The IOC accepted this change. It also stipulated that although they could still display the ROC official symbols and use the ROC national anthem, Taiwanese athletes must compete in the Olympics under the name ‘Taiwan’ or ‘Formosa’ rather than ‘China’ or ‘ROC.’ The Taipei side was strongly dissatisfied. It, however, realised that without an immediate compromise, Taiwanese athletes would be unable to participate in the Rome 1960 Summer Olympics. Consequently, the ROC Olympic Committee agreed to the IOC’s terms, while Taiwanese Olympians displayed a banner reading ‘under protest’ during the opening ceremony. Following this, decathlete Yang Chuan-kwang won a silver medal in Rome under the name ‘Formosa’. The ROC Olympic Committee embarked on a years-long campaign for name rectification.

In 1968, female hurdler Chi Cheng won a bronze medal in the Mexico City Summer Olympics under the name ‘Taiwan’. The IOC also decided that Taiwanese athletes could use the name ‘ROC’ in future Olympic Games. Subsequently, Henry Hsu, a retired Taiwanese rear admiral who participated in the name rectification campaign, submitted his application for the IOC membership. He was granted it in 1970. These accomplishments significantly boosted the status of Taiwan within the Olympic movement.

Before Taiwanese athletes competed in the Munich 1972 Summer Olympics under the name ‘ROC’, several significant geopolitical shifts had already taken place: the PRC government had replaced the nationalist government of ROC as China’s representative in the United Nations, the United States had begun engaging with the communist regime in the Chinese mainland, and many of its allies had severed official ties with Taipei in favour of establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing. In this context, the All-China Sports Federation, the successor of the All-China Athletic Federation, in 1975, applied to rejoin the Olympic family and requested the IOC to expel its Taipei counterpart immediately. The PRC authorities also successfully lobbied the Canadian government to prohibit the Taiwanese delegation from using the name ‘ROC,’ displaying the ROC national flag and emblem, and playing the ROC national anthem in the Montreal 1976 Summer Olympics. This led to the withdrawal of Taiwanese athletes from the opening ceremony and subsequent competitions.

IOC President Lord Killanin and his colleagues maintained the principle that both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland should co-exist in the Olympics. However, they recognised that given the international political realities, particularly during the Montreal Olympics, the issue could only be resolved if the Taiwanese side agreed to forgo the use of the name ‘ROC.’ Some Taiwanese officials and public figures also understood that changing the name of their national Olympic committee and accepting the co-existence with the Chinese mainland were necessary steps to ensure that Taiwanese athletes could compete in future Olympic Games.

In December 1978 and January 1979, the United States government severed its decades-long diplomatic relations with Taipei and established official ties with Beijing. Following this, the PRC authorities introduced the ‘One Country Two Systems’ formula to engage Taiwan. This formula stipulated that the Chinese mainland and Taiwan could co-exist in international sports and other non-governmental activities, provided that the one-China principle – there is only one China in the world, Taiwan is a province of China, and the PRC government is the official representative of China – was upheld.

Based on the ‘One Country Two Systems’ formula, the All-China Sports Federation proposed that upon rejoining the IOC, the national Olympic committee in Beijing should be named the Chinese Olympic Committee and serve as the representative of the entire China. It also suggested that the national Olympic committee in Taipei could continue participating in the Olympics as a local entity, but with certain restrictions: Taiwanese athletes would not be allowed to use the name ‘ROC’ or ‘Taiwan,’ display the ROC official symbols, or play the ROC national anthem. Meanwhile, the ROC Olympic Committee informed the IOC that it could change its name, provided that the status and rights of Taiwan in the Olympics were equal to those of other countries and regions.

Considering the above information, the IOC members accepted the All-China Sports Federation’s application to rejoin the Olympic family in Montevideo in April 1979. They also resolved that the national Olympic committees on both sides would be named the Chinese Olympic Committee, Taipei and the Chinese Olympic Committee, Beijing. 

The Beijing side raised objections, arguing that the resolution fabricated the concept of two Chinas. In response, Lord Killanin and his colleagues in the IOC Executive Board resolved in Nagoya in October 1979 that the national Olympic committee in Beijing would be named the Chinese Olympic Committee and was allowed to use the PRC national flag and anthem. The national Olympic committee in Taipei would be named the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and was required to use a new flag, emblem, and anthem, subject to approval by the IOC Executive Board. This resolution was passed by the IOC members through a mail-in vote one month later.

The Beijing side was elated with the Nagoya Resolution, while the Taipei side was incensed. A Swiss court even accepted a lawsuit filed by Henry Hsu against the IOC, citing procedural breaches in the passage of the resolution. This issue perplexed Lord Killanin until his retirement in August 1980. Subsequently, Juan Samaranch, Killanin’s successor, informed Hsu that if the lawsuit was withdrawn and the Nagoya Resolution was accepted, he would ensure Taiwan’s membership in all sports federations affiliated with the IOC and adopt the new flag, emblem, and anthem exclusively arranged by Taiwan. Samaranch also assured that a Taiwanese citizen would become an IOC member following Hsu’s retirement and that the rights and status of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee would be on par with those of other IOC-recognised national Olympic committees. These terms were acceptable to the Taipei side. Consequently, an agreement was signed by Samaranch and Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee Chairperson Shen Chia-Minh in Lausanne in March 1981.

Under the Lausanne Agreement and the Nagoya Resolution, Taiwanese athletes have competed in all Winter and Summer Olympics under the name ‘Chinese Taipei’ since 1984, securing a total of 41 medals (9 gold, 10 silver, and 22 bronze). The display of the ROC official symbols has been strictly prohibited at stadiums, athletes’ accommodations, and other Games-related venues. Furthermore, Wu Ching-kuo, a Taiwanese architect, succeeded Henry Hsu as an IOC member in 1988. He collaborated closely with his colleagues, including those from the Chinese mainland, to manage Olympic affairs until his retirement in 2020.

Many Taiwanese people perceived the Nagoya Resolution and the Lausanne Agreement as diminishing their motherland’s standing in the international community. They argued that their athletes should compete under the name ‘Taiwan’ rather than ‘Chinese Taipei’ in future Olympic Games. Consequently, a referendum aimed at name rectification was held in 2018. It provoked strong reactions from the IOC, the PRC authorities, the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, and Taiwanese athletes. Although the referendum was finally vetoed, some Taiwanese advocated for holding another one. Additionally, after Wu retired from office, no Taiwanese citizen succeeded him as an IOC member. The ongoing demand for name rectification and the absence of Taiwanese citizens in the IOC membership raises questions about the potential adverse impact on Taiwan’s status within the future Olympic movement. The answer remains to be seen.

Marcus P. Chu is the Associate Director of the MA in International Affairs program at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. He can be reached at marcus.p.chu@gmail.com.

This article was published as part of a special issue on ‘Sports and Identity’.