Senior Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials have described the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) efforts to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan" as "pushing the Taiwanese people in front of an oncoming car."
Rather than defend the rights of Taiwanese, the KMT's first reaction to the application being rejected has been to comply with China's oppression of Taiwan.
This pandering to China is certainly shameless, but the episode has highlighted the fallacy inherent in three major aspects of the KMT's China policy. These are its advocacy of a "cross-strait mutual non-denial" treaty, its faith in the so-called "1992 consensus," which allegedly outlines that each side of the Taiwan Strait agrees that there is only one China, although each has a different interpretation of what that means, and its insistence that the forums that have been held between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are helping to reconcile cross-strait differences.
First, KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) believes that he can break the deadlock and resume dialogue by getting China to agree to a "cross-strait mutual non-denial" treaty. But Beijing deals with massive mainstream public support for joining the UN by boorishly denying that Taiwan exists and refusing to allow Taiwan the international space to which it is entitled. This illustrates that Ma's "cross-strait mutual non-denial" policy is not viable.
Second, the rejection of the UN application has once again disproved the argument that there is one China with each side having a different interpretation. By intimidating the UN into rejecting Taiwan's application and (agreeing with Beijing's interpretation of) UN Resolution 2758, China has proven that it is simply unwilling to let the Republic of China (ROC) have a "different interpretation."
In addition, the idea that there is only one China is related to the People's Republic of China (PRC) being the sole legal representative of China. Therefore as long as "one China" is maintained, it eliminates any room for the ROC internationally, and gives Beijing a legal basis to succeed the ROC as representative of all of China by annexing Taiwan.
The KMT's "one China with different interpretations" policy is not only unhelpful in reconciling cross-strait differences, but also threatens to allow China a legal gap to annex Taiwan, further proof the policy is flawed.
Third, the KMT makes a great fuss over how its forums with the CCP promote cross-strait harmony. But since 2005, when the first forum was held, China has signed a memorandum with the WHO to limit Taiwan's participation in the organization, and the UN has started talking about how "Taiwan is a part of China."
The beginning of the "solidification of one China" internationally began right after the first forum. If the meetings promote Taiwan's international participation, why is it that the more forums are held, the more Taiwan's international space is strangled? The rejection of the UN application disproves the lie that the forums are helping Taiwan.
As joining the UN has apparently become a national consensus, and the calls for referendums have demonstrated that joining the UN is part of the mainstream view, both the opposition and ruling parties should be striving to defend Taiwan's referendum democracy and international dignity. They should not be clinging to flawed positions that have already been rejected internationally, nor should they be going along with Beijing's oppression.
Lai I-chung is head of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of International Affairs.
Translated by Marc Langer
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