The discussion and debate that ensued after Taiwan's recent failed "dual strategy" bid to enter the UN did not put forth new strategies to achieve the dream of UN representation. This bid was Taiwan's 13th consecutive effort to accomplish that aim. This failure is particularly poignant since many world leaders voiced their concern about the plight of Taiwan in their short addresses at the UN General Assembly in New York.
But their efforts had no effect upon the problem of representation. Whatever considerations may have been behind the UN General Committee's decision not to put the item on the General Assembly's 60th session agenda, it undoubtedly continues the grave injustice perpetuated upon the 23 million people of Taiwan.
The immediate cause behind the committee's decision the People's Republic of China's (PRC) fierce opposition.
Questions such as "Who owns the title to Taiwan in international law" need to be decided on merit since the Republic of China, or Taiwan, is a de facto state that has been independently carrying out all the usual government functions -- including foreign relations -- for more than half a century.
The international legal doctrine of effective occupation will surely fortify Taiwan's claim, since this doctrine is held in high esteem and given weighty consideration by international courts and tribunals.
The question can also be solved by negotiations between Taiwan and the PRC, with or without mediators. That would be in the best interest of both parties.
But before that, the UN, a globally respected organization, cannot arbitrarily be sidelined by the PRC. That would clearly run counter to international law. That is totally unbecoming of an international society based upon the rule of law.
To every impartial observer, there is a crisis in the Taiwan Strait which has the potential of erupting into a major war with catastrophic consequences, affecting not only the region but the entire world.
Such a situation surely engages the UN Security Council to fulfill its primary responsibility under Article 24(1) of the UN Charter: to maintain international peace and security.
Even non-member states have certain obligations when the council steps in to maintain the peace. The presence of a party involved in the dispute (PRC) at the Security Council cannot and shall not be valid grounds to shirk the critical responsibility entrusted in the organization by its charter.
The council shoulders the primary responsibility of maintaining global peace and security, as mandated by the UN Charter, although the word "primary" does not mean "sole," as expounded by the International Court of Justice in the celebrated "Nicaragua Case." Naturally, that means other agencies and regional mechanisms can play a legitimate role in this situation.
Unfortunately, this has not happened so far with the Taiwan issue, so the Security Council is bound to deal with this issue.
Taiwan can also bring this matter to the attention of the council under Article 35(2) of the Charter which says, "a State which is not a Member of the UN may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter."
Taiwan can request that the Security Council, in accordance with Article 36(1) of the UN Charter, investigate the Taiwan question, the merits of the complaint and recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
The Hawaiian Kingdom filed a similar complaint against the US with the council in 2001[7] concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Taiwan, of course, has a right to be heard before the council under Article 32.
Though it's possible the complaint may be rejected by Beijing's veto, such a strategy will bring many advantages to Taiwan.
The cause of Taiwan will be highlighted and the appeal to the international community will be more powerful than its past 13 failed attempts to enter the UN through the General Assembly.
Such a maneuver would bring the Taiwan issue and the dilemma of its 23 million people to the attention of the world.
The international community needs to swear that no one state will be allowed to decide questions of right by might.
Manesh SV is a legal researcher in India.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS