Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has recently been tampering with the invitations for this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA). Taiwan’s letter of invitation from the WHA made reference to UN Resolution 2758 — which, passed in 1971, recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations.” The letter also deliberately misrepresents the “one China” principle. Xi is using the WHA to try to place Taiwan in a strait-jacket. If former Chinese prime minister Zhou Enlai (周恩來) were still alive, he would certainly castigate Xi and his fellow “princeling” hangers-on for their unforgivable ignorance.
At the time, Zhou opposed — but was not overly worried about — the UN’s offer of dual representation for the Republic of China (ROC) and the PRC at the UN. This is because China would only need to refuse to attend, and, after a period of two years, Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) representatives to the UN would be ejected. Zhou was more concerned that Resolution 2758 would afford Taiwan the means to exist independently of China.
Zhou believed that the wording of Resolution 2758 was insufficient, since it only sought to clarify the legitimate representative authority of China. Zhou believed the resolution should go further than this and expel Chiang’s representatives from the UN, thereby restoring the PRC as the legal representative of China. Furthermore, Zhou felt that the resolution did not resolve the issue of the return of the “sovereign territory” of Taiwan to China, or of Taiwan’s future.
Therefore, should Taiwan apply to become a member of the UN, there would be no problem over membership since there would no longer be an issue over which governing authority represents China. Zhou was a far more shrewd and ruthless political operator than Xi and his contemporaries. Zhou understood that the question of the legal status of Taiwan was far from settled. He also knew that Resolution 2758 simply confirmed which governing body represented China, and that it contained a gaping hole which would prevent China from tying down Taiwan.
Zhou’s heartfelt confession to then US national security adviser Henry Kissinger is well documented. Then-Saudi Arabian ambassador to the UN Jamil Baroody proposed resolution L-638, which advocates “one China, one Taiwan” and that Taiwan’s membership in the UN should be decided later through a referendum in Taiwan. The proposed resolution cites Resolution 2758 as proof that the UN never settled the matter of which country Taiwan belongs to, nor Taiwan’s future membership status.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon thought himself rather clever when in July 2007 he rejected Taiwan’s UN membership application by linking Resolution 2758 to the “one China” principle. At the time, the US and Taiwan’s other allies separately expressed their objections to Ban’s interpretation of the resolution. The WHA invitation is simply the latest example of an international body conflating Resolution 2758 with the “one China” principle.
If, when Resolution 2758 was passed, it really had defined Taiwan as belonging to “one China,” then Xi and his lackeys at the UN would not need to waste so much time and energy cooking-up the so-called “1992 consensus” and then bullying Taiwan to accept it.
Forty-five years have passed since Chiang’s representatives to the UN disappeared in a puff of smoke. Taiwan has just independently chosen its new government, and the public has voted for a democratic country that has nothing whatsoever to do with China.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Edward Jones
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
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
RSS