A US State Department spokesperson at a routine press conference on June 19 expressed the US' opposition to Taiwan's plan to hold a referendum to determine whether the country should apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan."
Several reasons were given for the opposition, including that the referendum appears designed to unilaterally change Taiwan's status, based on the US' "one China" policy. Also, the US does not support Taiwan's joining international organizations requiring statehood, so the referendum will not do anything to help Taiwan's UN bid while having an impact on peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
First, does joining the UN under the name "Taiwan" constitute a unilateral change to Taiwan's legal status? Such a question involves the interpretation of Taiwan's legal status. Applying for UN membership under the name of "Taiwan" is only a way to highlight that most Taiwanese feel that Taiwan is a sovereign state.
What is merely the Taiwanese people's interpretation of the nation's legal status will not necessarily amount to a binding and unilateral change to Taiwan's status. China will not recognize Taiwan as independent because of such a referendum. In the same way, the US will maintain its interpretation of Taiwan's status.
Second, I want to ask whether the referendum will be of any substantive help to Taiwan's UN bid. That should be decided by the Taiwanese themselves. I agree that it is delusional to think that the referendum in itself will suffice to grant Taiwan UN membership. If, however, the referendum is held, it will at the very least serve to determine Taiwan's future direction.
Third, cross-strait tensions are beyond the control of Taiwan itself. Whenever Taiwan takes democratic measures to show that it has sovereignty and thus is democratically legitimate in the eyes of the international community, China expresses its opposition. For example, in the run-up to Taiwan's first direct presidential election in 1996, China not only expresses opposition, but even threatened Taiwan.
If the US opposes Taiwan's actions simply because Chinese opposition leads to cross-strait tension, then the US is placing restrictions on good actions while promoting malicious behavior.
Finally, because the US is concerned with safeguarding its own interests, it is unwilling to support Taiwan's membership in international organizations that require statehood, which leaves other nations without ways to help.
Deeper reflection shows that holding a referendum will help the US control the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. If a majority of Taiwan's voters say that Taiwan should join the UN under the name of "Taiwan," they are saying that they do not think Taiwan is a part of China. This would give more international legitimacy to US arms sales to Taiwan and intervention in the cross-strait situation to maintain peace and security in the Taiwan Strait.
Without US support, it is very unlikely that Taiwan will be able to participate in any international organizations, particularly the UN. But if most Taiwanese freely and democratically express their wish for UN membership, there is no need for the US to manifest its opposition in terms that more or less amount to intervention in Taiwan's domestic affairs.
Regardless of what the US' stance may be, it could at least remain silent. That would give it more flexibility in negotiating with China and more options when dealing with other countries. On the name issue of Taiwan's UN bid, the US has plenty of room to maneuver and there is no need to overreact and even less need to be in such a hurry to show its stance.
Chiang Huang-chih is an associate professor at National Taiwan University's College of Law.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS