COVER STORY 'Taiwan Pavilion' issue could become another THAAD row: Chinese official
Summary
Chinese officials warned that the Gwangju Biennale controversy over the name Taiwan Pavilion could damage Korea-China ties and even become another THAAD row. They said allowing Taiwanese artists to use the name violated the One China principle and crossed a red line. Korea’s foreign ministry said the issue was a decision by private cultural actors and should not affect bilateral cooperation. The culture ministry said the foundation runs the biennale and that the government has no direct role.
Key Facts
- Chinese officials said the Taiwan Pavilion issue directly damages the political base of China-Korea relations.
- A Chinese official said Korea pledged to respect the One China principle when the two countries established diplomatic ties in 1992.
- The foreign ministry spokesperson said the government’s stance on Taiwan has not changed and that the matter was decided independently by private actors in the cultural sector.
Korean gov't shifts responsibility for controversy to Gwangju Biennale organizers
Artwork sits discarded at the Ha Jungwoong Museum of Art in Gwangju, Thursday, after Chinese artists and curators withdrew from the Gwangju Biennale 2026. The group pulled out in protest of the biennale’s decision to allow the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts to use the name "Taiwan Pavilion" rather than its institutional title. Yonhap
Controversy over the name of a Taiwanese exhibition venue at Gwangju Biennale has fueled concerns of a potential diplomatic conflict between Korea and China.
Chinese officials say that the biennale organizers’ permission for the participating Taiwanese artists to use the name of “Taiwan Pavilion” is against the “One China” principle, and that the decision crossed a “red line.” They warned that its impact on the bilateral relationship between Korea and China could be as serious as the diplomatic row over the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system deployment in 2017.
China protested on Thursday through a press release criticizing the Gwangju Biennale Foundation’s decision to permit Taiwanese artists to use the name “Taiwan Pavilion” at the international art event instead of the institutional name, the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts (NTMoFA). The release followed Chinese artists' official announcement of their withdrawal from the exhibition.
In the release, the embassy said the incident “directly damages the political base of China-Korea relations.”
A Chinese official told The Korea Times that when the two nations established diplomatic ties in 1992, Korea pledged to respect the "One China" principle, but that the decision to permit the use of the name "Taiwan Pavilion" went against that pledge.
The official said that from the Chinese government’s point of view, the Taiwan issue is a “red line” that cannot be crossed.
He expressed particular concern that the issue could develop into “another THAAD” row.
In 2016, Korea decided to allow the deployment of the U.S. THAAD anti-missile system on Korean soil. The next year, the system was placed at a golf course run by Lotte Group. China strongly protested the deployment, saying its radar could spy on Chinese airspace and harm its security interests.
The resulting economic retaliation by Beijing impacted Korean businesses, although none of the measures were officially acknowledged. Chinese travel agencies suspended group tour program sales to Korea, Korean artists and entertainers were blocked from receiving performance visas in China, exports of Korean cultural content to China were blocked and Korean cosmetics companies faced stricter customs inspections. Lotte Group's supermarket business in China was subject to prolonged operational suspensions and eventually withdrew from the country.
The period that followed marked a historical low in bilateral relations between the two countries. The chill has only recently begun to thaw. China’s decision in 2024 to grant visa-free entry to Korean tourists was widely seen as a sign of warming ties. The Lee Jae Myung administration has also sought to improve relations.
The current rift over the Gwangju Biennale mirrors broader regional fallout, such as the diplomatic clash between Beijing and Tokyo after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that Japan would intervene militarily in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
The official promotional pamphlet for the Taiwan Pavilion at the 2026 Gwangju Biennale, left, themed "Instance Dungeons: Gray Zone," alongside the biennale's online directory listing Taiwan among participating countries and territories. Courtesy of Taiwan's Ministry of Culture
The Korean government is trying to calm the situation by putting the ball in the court of the international exhibition’s organizers.
"There is no change in our government’s fundamental stance regarding Taiwan [that Korea respects the One China principle]," foreign ministry spokesperson Park Doo-soon said during a regular briefing.
“This matter was a decision made independently by private actors within the cultural and arts sector, and is entirely unrelated to the government's official stance on Taiwan. We hope this issue will not impact bilateral exchange and cooperation between Korea and China,” he said, adding that he understands that the Jeonnam-Gwangju Special Metropolitan City government has also clearly stated its respect for the "One China" principle to the Chinese side.
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism gave a similar response.
“The Gwangju Biennale itself is managed entirely by the foundation. We, the ministry, provide funding support and have no direct involvement in its operations,” a culture ministry official said.
“The foundation oversees both this year's theme and all administrative matters. We are aware that the Gwangju city government has already issued an apology regarding the issue. As this is primarily a foreign policy matter, the ministry has no separate statement to offer. It would be inappropriate for us to express an official position,” the official added.
The presidential office declined to comment directly on the matter, saying inquiries would be more appropriately directed through diplomatic channels.
Explore More
- Q.
- Q.
- Q.