With the 79th session of the UN General Assembly set to hold its General Debate from Tuesday next week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Taiwan this year would focus on challenging and refuting China’s misinterpretation and misuse of UN Resolution 2758, highlighting its fight against China’s hegemonic diplomacy and lawfare to exclude Taiwan from international society.
UN Resolution 2758 states that the General Assembly recognizes “that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are the only lawful representatives of China to the UN” and “expel[s] forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and all the organizations related to it.” The resolution does not mention Taiwan at all. Nevertheless, it has been misused by Beijing as a tool to push its “one China principle” and to block Taiwan’s international engagement.
Nauru’s decision in January to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan on the grounds of UN Resolution 2758 and the “one China principle” demonstrated the risk that if the misunderstanding is not clarified soon, the cross-strait status quo that “neither Taiwan nor the PRC is subordinate to the other” would be subverted by China.
A growing number of democracies and like-minded states have begun questioning China’s false claims about Taiwan and UN Resolution 2758. Following the US House of Representatives’ passage of the Taiwan International Solidarity Act to counter China’s distortion of the resolution, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for China and Taiwan Mark Lambert in April openly expressed strong opposition to Beijing’s misrepresentation, and underlined that the resolution neither endorsed an international consensus on the “one China policy” nor “constitute a UN institutional position on the political status of Taiwan.” The German Marshall Foundation in Washington also released a research paper saying that China’s assertion that the resolution is the basis for its “one China principle” is a flawed legal assumption and argument.
The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) during its annual summit in July passed a model resolution on 2758 saying that it does not endorse the “one China principle” and that the lack of representation for millions of Taiwanese in the UN should be remedied. IPAC delegates vowed to pass similar resolutions in their respective countries. The summit was attended by 49 members from 24 countries.
Meanwhile, Australia was the first country whose senate unanimously passed a motion regarding the misinterpretation of UN Resolution 2758. The Dutch House of Representatives also passed a motion rejecting Beijing’s distortion of the UN resolution and requested that the Dutch government seek support for this position within the EU.
Since this year’s UN General Assembly’s theme is “Leaving no one behind: acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development and human dignity,” the government and civil groups in Taiwan have pledged to increase efforts in appealing to the UN and the international community to stop China from misrepresenting the resolution, as the UN has ironically left behind Taiwan’s 23.5 million people.
Regretfully, when Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers on Wednesday proposed passing a motion clarifying Taiwan’s stance on UN Resolution 2758, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party demurred and walked out of the meeting. This move should be considered as an acquiescence to China’s bullying and distortion of Taiwan’s sovereignty and international representation.
Taiwanese authorities should work with like-minded partners to explicate how to correctly interpret UN Resolution 2758 to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty. The public should also beware of Chinese toadies who are hindering Taiwan’s solidarity and facilitating the authoritarian regime’s efforts to isolate Taiwan.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS