Amid the Ukraine war and bombings of Gaza, reason and civility seem to have given way to greed and cruelty. The recent Gaza ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump offers some optimism, but the agreement is so fragile that bombing could resume at any time without notice.
Meanwhile, Russians are tired of the war with Ukraine and are surrendering in droves. Financial woes, internal rebellions and a supply meltdown might end Russian aggression sooner than Ukrainian drones could destroy oil refineries, air and sea ports and ammunition depots.
Fiery speeches at the 80th UN General Assembly highlighted world leaders’ visions and resolve for a better world. Slovenian President Natasa Pirc Musar condemned Israel’s brutality in Gaza and US hypocrisy. Finnish President Alexander Stubb emphasized the need to balance values, interests and power amid a shifting global order, condemned Russia’s aggression and advocated for significant reform of the UN Security Council.
The strong language at the UN might help turn the world around. After all, cruelty springs from weakness.
Revising the UN Charter and the council requires adoption by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of the member states, including all five permanent members of the council, according to Article 108 of the charter. This requirement for unanimous ratification by the permanent members makes any substantive changes to the charter nearly impossible.
The charter was designed 80 years ago in San Francisco. The aggressors in World War II were excluded from the council, but the world has changed immensely, as two nations who were victims have become the aggressors.
The purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security, foster friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation on global challenges, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. It serves as a platform from which nations can address economic, social and humanitarian issues to help build a more peaceful and prosperous world.
Two reform issues are most pressing: Enhancing democratic legitimacy and inclusivity, and peacekeeping and security.
Taiwan’s UN membership stands out as an indicator whether the global body fulfills or forfeits its purpose. UN Resolution 2758 invited the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to represent Chinese, while leaving open the possibility for the Republic of China (ROC) to stay, just as North and South Korea are both member states.
In 1971, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) overruled his staff’s suggestion to keep the ROC in the UN for the benefit of Taiwanese.
Excluding the 23 million people of Taiwan from the UN goes against the ideal of inclusivity and reduces the representation of Taiwan, a beacon of democracy in Asia, whereas China is an authoritarian regime. The admission of Taiwan to the UN would not only demonstrate body’s will to leave no one behind, but also resolve tensions caused by Chinese aggression to truly ensure global stability by peaceful means.
The obstacles for Taiwan’s return to the UN are two permanent members of the council: Russia and China.
Russia might collapse soon enough. A peace treaty for Russian President Vladimir Putin to surrender should remove the Russian seat in the council.
Meanwhile, democratization is the only way to revive the Chinese economy and rid it of rampant corruption. Then-Chinese premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) in 2012 recognized that without political reform, a repeat of the Cultural Revolution would suffocate the economy.
In contrast to the economic theory of growth culture, Singapore, Taiwan and colonial Hong Kong attest that intrinsic Han culture does not hinder economic success; it is the political system that does.
The possibility of a military coup, political revolt and civil uprising in China are constant rumors on the Internet. An era following the exit of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that allows free speech, opposition parties and military nationalization as desired by the people might arrive sooner or later.
Any new leader seeking political reform would need to dispel the hostility across the Taiwan Strait. Allowing Taiwan’s UN membership to truly ensure stability would win hearts and minds in the democratic world — a surefire way to get international help to avoid China’s economic downward spiral in the foreseeable “lost” decades.
A return to the UN is Taiwan’s path to the future, and a triumph of democracy that furthers Taiwan’s contributions of global health, supply chains, disaster relief and financial strength to international problem solving capability.
James J.Y. Hsu is a retired professor of theoretical physics.
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS