We have all witnessed how quickly the People’s Republic of China (PRC) broke its most recent promise to refer to Taiwan as Zhonghua Taibei (中華台北, Chinese Taipei) and not Zhongguo Taibei (中國台北, Taipei, China) at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.
This broken promise followed on the heels of an earlier failed pledge to use this term. But another issue now faces Taiwan, that of UN membership. Not to worry, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) Cub Scouts are again hard at work, flying by the seat of their pants.
Since 1993, Taiwan has made an annual application to regain membership in the UN. What name to use is an issue. This is the name game and charade that Taiwan plays with the hypocrites of the world who trade and make money with Taiwan as an equal, who have cultural exchanges with Taiwan as equals, who do everything else with Taiwan as equals but who cannot bring themselves to officially recognize Taiwan as a diplomatic equal because that would jeopardize their ability to make money from China.
Traditionally Taiwan had used the name “Republic of China” for entry. As this had always been shot down by China, the Taiwanese government switched to the name “Taiwan” last year — with no greater success. This year, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman Henry Chen (陳銘政) said the Ma government would not follow the strategy of the previous administration under Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Fair enough, each administration has it own call, so what brainstorm will they come up with for this annual issue?
Ma, of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), was elected president in March and he and his Cabinet took office in May. It is now August and Taiwan’s application to the UN, a standard annual priority in Taiwan’s affairs regardless of administration, is due. Media reports said Ma picked his Cabinet based on their capability and seasoned experience: So why are they stalling?
Unfortunately the foreign ministry is stuck and seems to be taking its lead from “ostrich” Ma. The government has yet to decide on a name as it does not want to risk offending China. It has also falsely claimed that it cannot use the same name employed in previous UN applications after two local referendums on UN accession this year failed to pass. That logic tests the mind and reveals the typical fudge factor Ma uses to skirt responsibility for his actions.
A little background is in order on this. Taiwan conducted the two referendums on UN membership in March. For a referendum to pass it must first have the participation of 50 percent of the nation’s eligible voters (not votes cast at the time). After meeting that requirement, the referendum must also be approved by 50 percent of those who voted plus one.
This places a high burden on any referendum since, as in many countries, getting a 50 percent turnout for a referendum is difficult. If a referendum fails to pass that bar, then that topic cannot be brought up again as a referendum for three years. This says nothing about the nation or national policy; it only says the topic cannot be raised again for three years.
Taiwan has never had any referendum that passed that bar. One of the two UN referendums this year was initiated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) asking whether Taiwan should apply for entry to the international organization under the name Taiwan. The KMT, faking a show of Taiwanese consciousness, countered this with a referendum on entering under any suitable name. For them the name Taiwan is anathema.
The KMT was clearly faking because soon after the party proposed a referendum and obtained the necessary signatures to support the holding of such a referendum, it urged voters to boycott it as well as the DPP referendum. Why? Boycotts lower the possibility of passing the first bar — that of getting 50 percent of the eligible voters.
The KMT did not want to risk voter confusion as to which was the more appropriate referendum, and it certainly did not want a referendum with the name Taiwan passing. It was better to burn all bridges and lower the eligible voters for both. In this way, Ma could use the KMT to block Taiwan’s wish for entry to the UN although technically he could not be accused of voting against it.
Not surprisingly, both referendums failed to pass the required threshold. More than 6.2 million people voted in the referendums, which received 87 and 94 percent voter approval, but they did not meet the first requirement that more than 50 percent (8.6 million voters) of the 17.3 eligible voters should participate in the vote.
This is the hypocritical obfuscation and fudge factor that Ma always hides behind. With this background, the foreign ministry recently floated the idea of using “Chinese Taipei” — the non-entity name given the Olympic team — for the nation’s application to join the UN.
The deadline for application is tomorrow.
Non-plussed, Henry Chen has been quoted as saying: “We will have a strategy by then, I cannot say what it will be, but there is still time.”
Whipping up a strategy in a short time might not be a problem, especially as much of the ministry has been in place through both administrations.
But to think that the ministry can come up with a name that China will approve other than that of a PRC satellite is ludicrous. To think that it can placate China is ludicrous. To think that the issue will go away if the ministry hides its head in the sand is ludicrous.
The problem in this matter is China and has always been China; it is not the previous Taiwanese administration that Ma keeps trying to paint as the bad guy, nor is it the name.
Ma’s team should be man enough and continue to expose the hypocrisy of the UN, whose charter says that people have the right to self determination. It should not false-heartedly try to find a denigrating name that China would accept. Simply tell the Chinese Emperor that he has no clothes. If the question of name is still a problem, then what name should they use? A friend suggested a different name for the ministry, one that reflects the attitude of Ma and his pie-in-the-sky
NITWITS, yes that name has a ring to it; it certainly captures the spirit and character of Ma’s Cub Scouts and “new” flexible kowtowing strategy in diplomacy.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS