On July 19, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon requesting that the nation be admitted to the body under the name "Taiwan," only to have Ban reject the request.
Ban's justification was that the 1971 UN Resolution 2758 granted UN representation for China to the People's Republic of China (PRC), thereby expelling the government of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from its illegally held seat. Actually, this resolution only decided who had the right to represent China.
Under the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) pushed to "return to the UN," but always by applying to have its authority restored under the name "Republic of China" (ROC).
In the first few years of the Chen administration, Taiwan's movement to join the UN continued to call for a "return" and ask that the UN make a new interpretation of Resolution 2758. As this road proved impassable, Taiwan later changed its strategy and began trying to "join" the UN rather than "return" to it. Therefore Chen's letter to Ban was just an amplification of the same approach.
It was interesting that Ban used the resolution, which he said had already decided the question of Chinese representation, to reject Taiwan's application. Taiwan has two points to protest.
First, countries applying to enter the UN as new members notify the secretary-general as a courtesy. The secretary-general is not authorized to reject it.
Second, Taiwan applied as a new member, thereby avoiding the question of representing China. The resolution that Ban cited applies to the question of who represents China, not the question of who represents Taiwan.
Based on these two points, Taiwan should extend the battle lines in its effort to join the UN. The ultimate goal would be to reach an international arbitration court to fight a lawsuit over Taiwan's position, and confirm that the resolution has no binding power over questions not concerning the right to represent China.
The KMT has proposed applying to return to the UN under the name "Republic of China," but Ban's recent actions prove that the movement to "return" may not only fail, but could also once again mire Taiwan in disputes over the right to represent China, while also confirming that an expanded interpretation of the resolution has the power to cover Taiwan.
Recently the KMT has attacked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs saying that its effort to enter the UN has humiliated the nation. This is probably because it is still under the illusion that the ROC can represent China, or at least that it can still enjoy shared authority over the seat with the PRC. Ban has certainly punched a hole in that dream.
But for the KMT the most unfortunate thing is not that the ROC can't play its old ROC card. Rather, it is that, while China praises Ban for violating procedures and citing an irrelevant resolution and scolds the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for promoting de jure independence, KMT Secretary-General Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) have both taken Beijing's side.
This kind of self-defeating behavior is a gift from heaven for the DPP and its presidential candidate, Frank Hsieh (
Li To-tzu is a legislative assistant.
Translated by Marc Langer
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS