As expected, Taiwan's bid to re-enter the UN failed. It is a mark of how intractable this problem is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarded the effort as well spent if only because the debate went on longer than usual and the US -- unlike during the last years of the Clinton administration -- didn't speak in opposition to the motion.
But there was a downside, too, if an event so formulaic with so inevitable an outcome can be said to have any meaning at all. China twisted a lot of arms to make sure that the number of those states speaking against Taiwan significantly increased. Defeat was inevitable but China wanted to ensure it was by as a large a margin as possible, thereby, we assume, thinking that it in some way more fully compromised Taiwan's claim to be a state.
Little marked this year's bid as being different from those before it. Once again the strategy was for Taiwan's diplomatic allies to propose to the UN General Committee, which draws up the General Assembly's agenda, that it consent to include on that agenda a motion to reconsider Resolution 2758 -- which replaced Chiang Kai-shek's (
Once again the General Committee rejected the agenda proposal. Here in Taiwan there had been suggestions that Taipei should go about its bid in an entirely different way, perhaps by applying for membership as a new country, maybe even one that called itself Taiwan. As former US ambassador Harvey Feldman pointed out on this page last week (Letters, Sept. 12) since applications by prospective new members of the UN have first to be vetted and approved by the Security Council, China's membership on that council is an insuperable obstacle. Taiwan's attempt to have Resolution 2758 revised is in fact the only practical method by which it might regain membership.
If there is anything to regret about this year's performance it is that Taiwan so consistently refuses to describe itself as a state, that it harps on about 23 million people going without UN representation when the point is that people are not UN members, states are. If there is anything wrong with Resolution 2758 it is not that it left 23 million people unrepresented, rather that it adopted a totally unrealistic view of Chinese affairs, assuming one unitary government of all China either side of the Taiwan Strait. If bringing China into the UN was supposed to be a move toward realism -- abandoning the absurd fiction that the Chiang government was the government of all China -- then it should have admitted that China was split.
There is little point perhaps in rehashing what should have happened 30 years ago. But the UN bid reminds us how the DPP government has fallen into the trap of its predecessor by playing down the issue of Taiwan's statehood as a "goodwill gesture" toward China. We had hoped that after former president Lee Teng-hui's (
We have, however, been disappointed, both by the KMT and the DPP in their willingness to trade Taiwan's dignity for the ever elusive benefits of Bei-jing's goodwill of which not a jot has ever manifested itself. What is needed is not protests about the lack of representation of the people of Taiwan, but rather the lack of representation of the state of the ROC on Taiwan. That is who is missing from the UN. Such a tack might not be any more successful, but if defeat is inevitable let the country keep some dignity in facing it.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS