The discussion and debate that ensued after Taiwan's recent failed "dual strategy" bid to enter the UN did not put forth new strategies to achieve the dream of UN representation. This bid was Taiwan's 13th consecutive effort to accomplish that aim. This failure is particularly poignant since many world leaders voiced their concern about the plight of Taiwan in their short addresses at the UN General Assembly in New York.
But their efforts had no effect upon the problem of representation. Whatever considerations may have been behind the UN General Committee's decision not to put the item on the General Assembly's 60th session agenda, it undoubtedly continues the grave injustice perpetuated upon the 23 million people of Taiwan.
The immediate cause behind the committee's decision the People's Republic of China's (PRC) fierce opposition.
Questions such as "Who owns the title to Taiwan in international law" need to be decided on merit since the Republic of China, or Taiwan, is a de facto state that has been independently carrying out all the usual government functions -- including foreign relations -- for more than half a century.
The international legal doctrine of effective occupation will surely fortify Taiwan's claim, since this doctrine is held in high esteem and given weighty consideration by international courts and tribunals.
The question can also be solved by negotiations between Taiwan and the PRC, with or without mediators. That would be in the best interest of both parties.
But before that, the UN, a globally respected organization, cannot arbitrarily be sidelined by the PRC. That would clearly run counter to international law. That is totally unbecoming of an international society based upon the rule of law.
To every impartial observer, there is a crisis in the Taiwan Strait which has the potential of erupting into a major war with catastrophic consequences, affecting not only the region but the entire world.
Such a situation surely engages the UN Security Council to fulfill its primary responsibility under Article 24(1) of the UN Charter: to maintain international peace and security.
Even non-member states have certain obligations when the council steps in to maintain the peace. The presence of a party involved in the dispute (PRC) at the Security Council cannot and shall not be valid grounds to shirk the critical responsibility entrusted in the organization by its charter.
The council shoulders the primary responsibility of maintaining global peace and security, as mandated by the UN Charter, although the word "primary" does not mean "sole," as expounded by the International Court of Justice in the celebrated "Nicaragua Case." Naturally, that means other agencies and regional mechanisms can play a legitimate role in this situation.
Unfortunately, this has not happened so far with the Taiwan issue, so the Security Council is bound to deal with this issue.
Taiwan can also bring this matter to the attention of the council under Article 35(2) of the Charter which says, "a State which is not a Member of the UN may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter."
Taiwan can request that the Security Council, in accordance with Article 36(1) of the UN Charter, investigate the Taiwan question, the merits of the complaint and recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
The Hawaiian Kingdom filed a similar complaint against the US with the council in 2001[7] concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Taiwan, of course, has a right to be heard before the council under Article 32.
Though it's possible the complaint may be rejected by Beijing's veto, such a strategy will bring many advantages to Taiwan.
The cause of Taiwan will be highlighted and the appeal to the international community will be more powerful than its past 13 failed attempts to enter the UN through the General Assembly.
Such a maneuver would bring the Taiwan issue and the dilemma of its 23 million people to the attention of the world.
The international community needs to swear that no one state will be allowed to decide questions of right by might.
Manesh SV is a legal researcher in India.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS