Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) has finally publicly addressed the issue of Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, saying that “after cross-strait consultations resume, issues of concern to Taiwanese on participation in international organizations will be discussed, with priority given to participation in WHO activities.”
This seems to present an opportunity for Taiwan, while also affirming an approach that places cross-strait relations before diplomatic relations.
However, without diplomacy, there can be no cross-strait relations. A look at international events and organizations in which Taiwan participates shows that every accomplishment has been achieved in the face of Chinese opposition. The same applies to diplomatic ties.
The nation’s WTO membership met with Chinese opposition from the outset. Taiwan had to negotiate with each individual member state. Thanks to some previous diplomatic achievements, they all supported the bid. As a result of its fierce opposition, China came under pressure from all sides. This pressure and Taiwan’s diplomatic leverage forced China to show “goodwill.”
Aside from economic and trade organizations, the same applies to membership in regional fishery organizations. Even if China had shown goodwill from the start, Taiwan couldn’t have obtained its near-equal participation in such organizations without extended diplomatic effort. Such progress and achievements should be remembered by any national leader.
The biggest hindrance to Taiwan’s international participation is China. If it supported Taiwan, or even refrained from aggressively opposing it, everything would be much easier. However, if Taiwan’s international space must first be discussed in cross-strait negotiations, it will not be able to choose or decide on any issues related to international participation. The best-case scenario is that the issues would be decided by both Taiwan and China; while at worst they would be decided by China alone. How, then, would Taiwan differ from Hong Kong or Macau?
International participation often involves Taiwan’s particular interests, in which China has no right to intervene. Even the “caring” approval of Beijing does not necessarily mean that Taiwan will be able to easily obtain its goals. China is not a signatory to the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, for example, which does not involve concrete Chinese interests. China has therefore never actively intervened in its technical issues. Still, other signatories to the convention refuse to accept Taiwan as an equal, resulting in unfair distribution of catch quotas and boycotts from countries for political and technical reasons. Taiwan must fight every step of the way.
Cross-strait relations is an important issue that must be dealt with. China has delivered “goodwill” messages on Taiwan’s WHO membership bid, but it would be premature and unwise to examine and discuss Taiwan’s diplomatic issues within a cross-strait framework because of this single case.
If Taiwan’s international participation should be decided by China, our so-called “international space” would be nothing more than a “cage” within a “one China” framework, even if the “motherland” was considering the interests of Taiwanese. Hong Kong and Macau are good examples: Would Taiwanese be happy to see that happen here?
If Taiwan gave up its diplomatic efforts and failed to accumulate bargaining chips on the international space issue, urgent negotiations with China on diplomatic issues and the hope for seeking international space and dignity with China’s goodwill would be nothing but capitulation, or a plea for mercy.
Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor at National Taiwan University’s College of Law.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath