An article titled "I'm not Chinese, I'm zhongguo ren" published on June 14 by the Global Times raised a serious and long-standing issue. That is, China has been a multi-ethnic country since ancient times, though various ethnic groups experienced very complicated conflicts. But in various Western languages, the translated terms relating to "zhongguo ren" and Chinese ethnic groups are confusing and could hardly represent the view that China is a unified family with various ethnic groups. This seriously misleads foreigners, especially Westerners.

Confucius said: "If terminology is not correct, then what is said cannot be followed, then work cannot be accomplished." When we talk about the promotion of China's "soft power," we should also look at translated terms related to China's national interests and correct the inappropriate ones.

So far, Western languages haven't made a distinction between "zhongguo ren" and "Han Chinese" and use one word "Chinese" to describe the two. Besides, thus goes with such words as "Chinese" and "Tibetan," which leaves the impression on Westerners that Tibet doesn't belong to China and Tibetans are not Chinese. Tibetan separatists spread such views as that "Tibet was invaded and controlled by China" and "Tibetans are being conquered and pushed out by the Chinese."

I suggest that in our formal documents "China" and "Chinese" should be exclusive terms for "zhongguo" and "zhongguo ren." China's ethnic majority, the Han, should be translated as "Han-Chinese" instead of "Chinese." Tibetans should be translated as "Tibetan-Chinese" instead of "Tibetan." Then such expressions as "Tibetans are oppressed by Chinese" could hardly stand up, because Han-Chinese or Tibetan-Chinese are all Chinese. There is no problem with Chinese taking care of their own affairs.

In addition, some ethnic groups, such as Mongolian, Koreans, Kazakhs and the Dai people in Yunnan, live both in China and neighboring countries. The new terms could avoid confusions.

Likewise, there are also problems with translating the Han language into "Chinese" and Han words into "Chinese characters."

Similarly, I suggest "Taiwan ren" should be precisely translated as "Taiwan-Chinese" instead of "Taiwanese." Then it won't leave such impressions as "Taiwan does not belong to China" and "Taiwan ren are not Chinese."

Maybe these new translated terms in Western languages seem wordy but they are more accurate. Using and publicizing these new translated terms will suppress those forces unfriendly to China.

The author is a professor in the German department of Beijing Foreign Studies University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

'Chinese' still covers every citizen of a diverse nation