The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has announced it is applying for membership in the UN under the name "Republic of China (Taiwan)" this year. However, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has also discussed using the name "Taiwan" on its own. In so doing, the nation could apply for UN membership as a new member state and ask the General Assembly to re-examine UN Resolution 2758.
When applying as a new member state, the government can use either the name "Taiwan" or "the Republic of China." Until "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (
Therefore, Taiwan will run into problems if it attempts to enter the UN under the name "the Republic of China."
To gain entry into the UN, Taiwan's only option is to use the name "Taiwan."
A new member state must be recommended by the Security Council and then acquire approval from two-thirds of the General Assembly to gain admission to the UN.
In addition, recommendation by the UN Security Council must be supported by nine of all 15 members, including the approval of the five permanent members.
So, if a permanent member of the Security Council vetoes the application, the Security Council recommendation will be blocked. An application for UN membership as a new member state is therefore bound to be vetoed by China, which means that an application under the name "Taiwan" is unfeasible in that arena.
Another tactic involves Resolution 2758. The 1971 resolution awarded the "China seat" to the People's Republic of China.
We could emulate the US Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which draws a distinction between the Taiwanese government and the Taiwanese people. In 1979, Washington terminated diplomatic ties with Taiwan but enacted the TRA to maintain a relationship between the people of the US and the people of Taiwan. Following this line of thinking, the UN expelled the Taiwanese government -- "Chiang's representatives" -- but not the Taiwanese people.
Thus, in 1971, the People's Republic of China gained entry to the UN. This addressed the Chinese people's right to be represented in the UN, but it created a new problem of how Taiwanese would be represented. Since the government is now requesting that the General Assembly resolve the issue, it should of course apply under the name "Taiwan."
Permitting or blocking national representation through the General Assembly is not without precedent.
And the benefit of using Resolution 2758 is that the UN General Assembly can decide on the issue of Taiwan's UN membership without requiring a recommendation from the Security Council, where China can exercise its veto.
The government must, however, use the name "Taiwan" rather than "Republic of China, Taiwan" that it is using now.
Chai Trong-rong is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS