In a compelling move that underscores the delicate balance between corporate branding and geopolitical sensitivities, two Republican lawmakers, Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan and Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have formally urged major hotel chains—Hilton, Marriott, and Hyatt—to reconsider their use of the term “Taiwan, China” in promotional materials. Their May 21 letter raises critical concerns about the implications of such terminology, suggesting it implicitly endorses the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim over Taiwan, a de facto independent nation.
The lawmakers articulated their position with clarity: “Using terminology such as ‘Taiwan, China’ gives false credence to the PRC’s position of authority and sovereignty over Taiwan and implies that Taiwan is the property of the PRC,” they stated. This assertion not only challenges the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative but also aligns with U.S. policy that recognizes Taiwan’s autonomy. Historical context is essential here; Taiwan operates under its own military, constitution, and democratically elected government, yet the PRC continues to regard the island as a “wayward province” that must eventually be unified with the mainland.
Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and Blackburn, who serves on several Senate committees, are keenly aware of the broader geopolitical ramifications at play. They cited a 2024 letter from the U.S. Agriculture, Commerce, and State departments, which encouraged Fortune 500 companies to strengthen ties with Taiwan. This letter emphasized that the U.S. government refers to Taiwan simply as “Taiwan,” a reflection of longstanding policy dating back to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which was a landmark legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter following a shift in diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing.
The lawmakers’ intervention is not merely a political maneuver; it taps into a growing sentiment among U.S. lawmakers to support Taiwan amid increasing pressure from the CCP. The pressure tactics employed by Beijing, including economic coercion against international companies, have become alarmingly common. For instance, in 2018, foreign airliners faced backlash for failing to adhere to CCP guidelines that mandated such terminology. The Trump administration condemned Beijing’s tactics at the time as “Orwellian nonsense,” highlighting a consistent bipartisan stance against these coercive measures.
Taiwan’s Foreign Minister, Lin Chia-lung, expressed gratitude for the lawmakers’ support, noting the persistent threats posed by the Chinese government to international businesses. He remarked, “For a long time, the Chinese government has used economic coercion against international companies to force them to comply with its false political claims.” This situation highlights the precarious position many companies find themselves in as they navigate the complex landscape of international relations.
As Moolenaar and Blackburn called on Hilton, Marriott, and Hyatt to align with U.S. policy by avoiding the term “Taiwan, China,” they posed key questions regarding the influence of the PRC on the companies’ terminology choices. They sought clarity on whether such language was adopted under the guidance of the Chinese government and whether the hotel chains would commit to calling Taiwan simply “Taiwan.”
This situation raises broader questions about corporate responsibility in the face of international diplomacy. Major U.S. companies have generally responded to these challenges by standing firm in their support of Taiwan, reinforcing the idea that corporate policies should reflect democratic values rather than yielding to authoritarian pressures. The stakes are high, as the relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan is not only crucial for regional stability but also for economic and national security interests.
As the deadline for a response from these hotel chains approaches, it remains to be seen how they will navigate this politically charged issue. The outcome will likely influence not only their branding strategies but also set a precedent for how other multinational corporations engage with Taiwan and respond to pressures from the PRC. The dialogue around this topic serves as a reminder of the intricate ties between commerce and diplomacy, illustrating that in today’s globalized world, words carry weight far beyond their immediate context.
