The US House of Representatives on Tuesday last week passed the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, which aims to counter efforts by China to exclude Taiwan from participating in international organizations. It is a milestone, clarifying Taiwan’s rightful status on the global stage through an allied nation’s legislation.
For decades, China has deliberately misrepresented Resolution 2758 passed by UN General Assembly in 1971, which “[recognizes] that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations” and “[d]ecides to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.” Beijing has used the resolution as the basis of its “one China” principle to push exclusive recognition of China and to exclude Taiwan from international organizations, such as the WHO, the International Civil Aviation Organization and Interpol, to the detriment of global health and security efforts.
Beijing has further distorted the resolution to assert its sovereignty claims over Taiwan, which could be a pretext for blocking international aid that Taiwan requires to protect against China’s coercion and a possible invasion. Beijing’s overly broad interpretation not only runs counter to the original text of the resolution; it also ignores that China never exercised sovereignty over Taiwan.
In 2007, the US and ally countries, including Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, issued stern protests to oppose a letter by then-UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon that said “in accordance with that resolution [2758], the UN considers Taiwan to be an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.” Ban apologized and pledged to drop the fallacious remark.
The bill passed by the US House clearly states that Resolution 2758 only deals with the issues of China’s representation, and does not apply to Taiwan.
“The resolution did not address the issue of representation of Taiwan and its people in the United Nations or any related organizations, nor did the resolution take a position on the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan or include any statement pertaining to Taiwan’s sovereignty,” it says.
Once the bill is approved by the US Senate and signed in to law by the president, it requires the US to support Taiwan’s bids to join international organizations, and to oppose attempts by Beijing “to resolve Taiwan’s status by distorting the decisions, language, policies, or procedures” of such organizations. It also “opposes any initiative that seeks to change Taiwan’s status without the consent of the [Taiwanese] people.”
Although a member country’s national legislation cannot affect the effectiveness of a UN resolution, the passage of the bill has demonstrated an unprecedented level of support for Taiwan in Washington. Shifting from a policy of ambiguity and international appeasement to avoid conflict with China, this legislation shows that the US is taking a definite stand to clarify the facts of Taiwan’s sovereignty, a significant step against China’s distortion of Taiwan’s legal status in UN and the global arena.
The bill is also considered a countermeasure against China’s escalating aggression against Taiwan. It is a strong signal from the world’s leading democratic country that China’s hegemony and expansionism must be opposed.
For Taiwan, the US bill is definitely a show of support, but more must be done to ensure that the global community understands Taiwan’s sovereignty as this would result in more international recognition and participation in international organizations.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS