The US Department of State says the US does not support Taiwan joining international organizations whose members are required to be sovereign states because of the "one China" policy. It also asked President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) not to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan."
The US says its "one China" policy is based on the three US-China joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. But the Shanghai Communique of 1972 and the Joint Communique of 1979 say nothing about Taiwan and international organizations. In the Joint Communique of Aug. 17, 1982, the US stated that it had "no intentions ... of pursuing a policy of `two Chinas' or `one China, one Taiwan.'" This can be twisted into the US not supporting Taiwan to become a member of the UN, but the history of the relations between Taiwan, the US and China does not prove Washington's "one China" policy is the reason why it does not support Taiwan's UN bid.
The US adopted a "one China" policy in 1950, but at that time the policy meant supporting the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government in Taipei to represent China and Taiwan in the UN. This did not stop the US from pursuing the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC).
In 1970 and 1971 there were no diplomatic relations between the US and the PRC, but that didn't stop then US president Richard Nixon from supporting it becoming a member of the UN and taking a permanent seat on the Security Council while the ROC was still a member. This was called "dual representation," but dictator Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) insistence that "gentlemen won't stand together with thieves" was one of the reasons why the policy failed.
On Oct. 25, 1971, the 26th session of the UN General Assembly passed Resolution No. 2758, expelling "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and in all the organizations related to it." Nevertheless, the US maintained diplomatic relations with the ROC government until 1978.
While the US currently insists on maintaining the "status quo," the examples above show that the US often sought its own benefit in changing the "status quo."
The fourth clause of the Taiwan Relations Act states: "Nothing in this Act may be construed as a basis for supporting the exclusion or expulsion of Taiwan from continued membership in any international financial institution or any other international organization." It doesn't say anything about the US opposing Taiwan's inclusion in international organizations that require statehood, and the US actually supported Taiwan's membership in the Asian Development Bank and APEC.
In the second clause, the Taiwan Relations Act states: "Nothing contained in this Act shall contravene the interest of the United States in human rights, especially with respect to the human rights of all the approximately eighteen million inhabitants of Taiwan. The preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan are hereby reaffirmed as objectives of the United States." Taiwan joining the UN would benefit the protection of the human rights of the Taiwanese people, so Taiwan's membership should also be the goal of the US.
Allowing Taiwan to join the UN will strengthen the US' power base in East Asia. The two sides should arrange high-level talks. If the US can talk to North Korea even though it has no diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, and with the PRC when it had no diplomatic relations with Beijing, then there is no reason to evade talks with Taiwan.
Chen Wen-hsien is a professor at National Chengchi University and specializes in the history of Taiwan-US relations.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS