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
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
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
RSS