The main point of Ben Goren’s recent opinion piece, in terms of Taiwan’s international situation, place and role in world affairs is that, aside from membership in the UN, there is another option — that is, membership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), but I do not see this favorably, although of course Taiwan does need outlets to solve its international problems, stemming from its expulsion from the UN in 1971 (“Taiwan has other options than UN,” Aug. 18, page 6).
In fact, Taiwan/the Republic of China (ROC) does participate in a number of international organizations that give it a role and voice in world affairs.
Taiwan has a seat at the International Olympic Committee, APEC, the Asian Development Bank, the Governmental Advisory Committee of the Internet Cooperation for Assigned Names and Numbers and the WTO. There is a long list of other organizations Taiwan is engaged in, not to mention Taiwan’s 17 diplomatic allies, which also offer it a place at the table in international affairs.
In many ways, Goren’s argument depends too heavily on the fact that Taiwan/ROC has been disallowed membership in the UN. No doubt this is problematic, but as Goren notes, the UN is “not the only global body of significance.” Enter the NAM.
The above of course is the central issue, and an issue with no easy solutions. I have many times in this newspaper expressed my views on Taiwan’s international situation, the looming presence of China and its refutation of Taiwan’s international presence, and at the extreme end, the possibility of either armed conflict with China, or Taiwan’s independence.
My view has been at times less than positive in terms of Taiwan’s situation and the possibility of its solution to these difficulties. At the same time, few would doubt my positive views on Taiwan’s international status and ultimate ability to stake its claim to a newly found global status.
To repeat, Goren’s view is that participation in the NAM could be Taiwan’s best answer to the international and transnational problems that beset it.
The NAM is in fact the second-largest international organization after the UN — and it is surprising that its 120 members could actually claim to be unaligned with this or that power bloc and other international organizations. Most of these same countries are members of the UN, and in this and other respects, they have in fact aligned themselves in various ways with other nations and positions.
However, is the NAM really the best approach? Although this alliance has some admirable aims, it has been virtually non-visible in international news since its founding in 1961. It is in effect a movement of developing nations of “the Global South,” and this is hardly Taiwan’s status.
The NAM has been active in the Group of 77, but Taiwan’s economy is the seventh-largest in Asia; it is seen as an advanced economy by the IMF and a high-income economy by the World Bank; and is ranked 15th in the world by the World Economic Forum. In these respects, and given Taiwan’s membership in the WTO and more, it is a first-ranked world player, and is generally seen as such by other nations.
It seems that India and Pakistan were virtual emblems of the NAM in much of its early period, and you cannot say much about that relationship. It seemed to reach a pinnacle of sorts with the Havana Declaration of 1979, when none other than then-Cuban president Fidel Castro announced that “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” would be maintained in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.”
Not a bad statement, but since when should we put much significance in that which comes from Castro and Havana? Today, Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro serves as the NAM chair, not a leader many others want to follow. Furthermore, are we supposed to consider Venezuela non-aligned?
Whether “non-alignment” in fact accords with human rights, peace and equality worldwide could be subject to debate. Many NAM members hardly support and endorse such views in their normal politics.
This is not to say that some of its fundamental principles are not commendable. Yet again, there is not much actual action in terms of these ideas via the NAM. This is not to say that freedom, equality and human rights are not supported around the world, but that the NAM’s actual upkeep in these areas is for the most part little seen.
I am not convinced that “alignment” with members of the NAM would necessarily be better than Taiwan’s current relations with the US, the EU, Japan and any number of other nations around the world (and here we might point to President Tsai Ying-wen’s (蔡英文) New Southbound Policy, and note that it too has strengthened ties with others).
Taiwan can do better than this. Currently, many people around the world see the nation as a viable member of the international community, a sovereign republic that upholds excellent civic values and virtues.
Taiwan has many economic relationships with countries worldwide, is a tourism hotspot, has excellent soft power and skills in cultural exchange and has been a technology and medical leader. The situation is far from perfect, but the nation can hold its head high as it waits for changes to be made.
David Pendery is an associate professor at National Taipei University of Business.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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