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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS