After almost 10 years, the attempts to engineer the return of the Republic of China to the UN have produced no results. Against this background, the government's proposal that it apply for UN membership using the name "Taiwan" represents a flexible approach to dealing with a dead-end situation.
It avoids the issue of the right to represent China as well as the possibility to reject the application based on UN Resolution 2758.
Since that resolution does not deal with the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty, "Taiwan" is a new issue for the UN.
The Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) proposed referendum on joining the UN seeks to highlight Taiwan's sovereignty and allows the public to directly express their wish to join the organization.
Not only does this conform to the fundamental UN policy of self determination and lay a solid foundation for joining the UN, it also avoids the issue of a referendum on Taiwanese independence and directly revealing the government's bottom line to the US and China.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), however, immediately issued a counterproposal: A referendum on returning to the UN, without denying that it was based purely on concern about the presidential election. Indeed, in addition to "Republic of China, the name "Taiwan" is also considered as an option in the referendum, a bid by the KMT to appeal to as many voters as possible.
Leaving the issue of the presidential election aside, the fact is that the referendum on returning to the UN is a reflection of the flexible diplomacy that former president Lee Teng-hui (
Should the KMT and the DPP urge their supporters to oppose the other party's referendum, it is very likely that neither will pass, an outcome that would cause great harm to Taiwan. Some people therefore advocate that the two referendums be merged, while others say that we should vote in favor of both referendums.
There are even KMT forces in the legislature working to merge the two into a third referendum, or to issue a resolution instead of pushing for a third referendum.
Unfortunately, hawks within the KMT will oppose anything including the name "Taiwan" or the word "referendum" and they are instead proposing that voters abstain from voting altogether.
Conservatives are suspicious of the name "Taiwan" and oppose the DPP referendum while remaining cautious on the KMT referendum to return to the UN. Pro-localization or reform-minded forces, for their part, support either the original KMT referendum, a third referendum or a resolution.
Because everyone insists on his or her own preferences, a lot of debate is going on and even top party officials seem to be at a loss as to what to do.
The election campaign is in full swing and the KMT is following up its massive victory in the legislative elections by calling for a united government. Despite this, the party remains unable to decide how to deal with the referendum proposed by the party itself and it lacks a sense of direction, if not the ability to unite. Where will Taiwan end up if the KMT manages to obtain its united government?
Huang Yu-lin is an associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at National Chiao Tung University and a former member of the Cabinet's Referendum Review Committee.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS