Taiwan lost its UN seat to China in 1971 when the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 and expelled the "representatives of Chiang Kai-shek [蔣介石]."
Although once an authoritarian state, Taiwan has evolved into what the US Department of State officially recognizes as a multi-party democracy.
Yet despite the remarkable changes, Taiwan continues to be locked out of most important international organizations -- including the UN.
For almost 15 years, Taiwan attempted to rejoin the UN by using names and strategies designed to avoid antagonizing China. Each year, Taipei's diplomatic friends asked the General Assembly to review Resolution 2758 and to view China as a divided country -- just like the Koreas.
And Taiwan always used its official moniker -- the Republic of China (ROC) -- when seeking to convince the UN to review its case. But these efforts went nowhere.
This year, Taipei mounted a noisy campaign to enter the UN as "Taiwan." The move has placed it on a collision course both with the US, its closest friend and supporter, and China. Officials acknowledge that the campaign makes some countries uncomfortable.
But they also complain that all past "rational and modest appeals" were ignored by the global community.
The new bid to join the world body as "Taiwan" and the corresponding plan to hold a referendum on the issue is drawing international attention to Taiwan's plight.
The Bush administration vigorously opposes Taiwan's push to join the UN. Officials have advanced a number of arguments to justify the US stance. Some warn that the initiative will "increase tensions in the Taiwan Strait" and "appears" to change the "status quo." Others point out that the effort is a "futile gesture" as China, with its seat on the UN Security Council, can block Taiwan's entry to the body. Still others suggest that the US cannot get behind the campaign because supporting Taiwan's membership in the UN would violate its "one China" policy.
Finally, some US officials have said that Washington does not support Taiwan's membership in international organizations that require statehood, including the UN.
To be sure, each of these arguments holds merit.
As President Chen Shui-bian (
Washington should not support Taiwan's full membership in the UN or jettison its "one China" policy. This would jeopardize the US' important relationship with China. Moreover, Taiwan's UN campaign does hold the potential to increase tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Beijing has already threatened Taiwan and calls its vice president as "the scum of the nation." And Taiwan's new drive to join the UN is doomed to failure. China will undoubtedly block the move. But there is something the US can do.
In order to defuse the UN controversy and help prevent it from escalating into a regional or global crisis, the US administration ought to abide by an important part of official policy that it now ignores. According to the 1994 interagency review of US policy toward Taiwan, the US will "support opportunities for Taiwan's voice to be heard in organizations where it is denied membership." But Taipei still has no voice in the UN.
Rather than bully Taipei, Washington ought to follow the advice it so often proffers to Beijing and try out some new thinking.
Employing quiet diplomacy, the US should gently nudge other countries -- including China -- toward the idea that Taiwan deserves a voice in the UN and should be allowed to participate -- if only as an "observer" or "non-state actor." When the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly opens next September and Taipei's diplomatic allies once again ask it to consider Taiwan's full membership, Washington should be prepared to support a compromise proposal that is consistent with longstanding US policy and does not violate the sacrosanct "one China policy."
The Bush administration should endorse a resolution that enables Taiwan to participate in the UN as an observer using a name similar to the one it now employs when participating in the Olympic Games -- Chinese Taipei.
After all, it is clear that the time has arrived for the international community to find a way for Taiwan's voice to be heard in the UN.
Dennis Hickey is director of the graduate program in International Affairs at Missouri State University.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS