On July 25, the US House of Representatives passed the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, which states that while UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 “established the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China [PRC] as the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations,” the resolution “did not address the issue of representation of Taiwan and its people in the United Nations or any related organizations.”
The act is not only a political statement of profound significance on the US’ part, but it also underscores the fact that the US is using a formal legal document to counter China’s deliberate misrepresentation of Resolution 2758 to suppress Taiwan’s international participation.
For decades, China, be it through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Taiwan Affairs Office, has cited Resolution 2758 — which only addresses China’s right of representation — as the legal basis for its “united front” work against Taiwan.
Chinese officials have always claimed that “once and for all, Resolution 2758 resolved, politically, legally and procedurally, the issue of the representation of the whole of China, including Taiwan, in the United Nations.” However, this is China making a fool of itself in the international community.
In the text, Resolution 2758 states that the PRC is the only legitimate government of China and that it replaced the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), then the president of the Republic of China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
As Resolution 2758 addresses only the issue of China’s representatives to the UN without a word about Taiwan, the PRC has no legitimate grounds to use it as a basis for its claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. While Beijing has stubbornly clung to the document, the US House has delivered a stinging slap with the passing of the Taiwan International Solidarity Act.
For decades, the US has relied on the Taiwan Relations Act as its legal framework for the US-Taiwan relationship, but has never rebuked Beijing’s “one China” principle with the passing of legislation. However, this time the US has put its foot down and made it clear to the world that Resolution 2758 has nothing to do with Taiwan’s sovereignty, thereby breaking the illusion of China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.
Before Taiwan’s presidential election in January, every candidate would inevitably face the question surrounding Resolution 2758. In terms of Taiwan’s status and foreign relations, the candidates would have to consider Washington’s shift away from China with the Taiwan International Solidarity Act and face the argument centering on Resolution 2758, whether it is Taiwan People’s Party Chairman and founder Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who promotes the ideology that “two sides of the Strait are one family,” or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), whose “anti-independence” stance falls in line with the PRC’s party line.
China has always used Resolution 2758 as its legal basis for blocking Taiwan’s participation in international organizations. Now that the West, led by the US, is severing ties with China, Taiwan’s presidential candidates also have the responsibility to show their hands: whether they are to keep on kowtowing to China on the sidelines, or to accept the terms laid down in black and white in Resolution 2758, and keep Taiwan in lockstep with democratic allies.
The results of the presidential election will not only determine Taiwan’s future, but also Taiwan’s role in the global community.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and chairman of the Taiwan Forever Association.
Translated by Rita Wang
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS