The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday that although it had yet to formalize a strategy for this year’s bid to join the UN, it would not be following the example of the previous administration in using the name “Taiwan.”
With the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) return to executive power following Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) victory in March’s presidential election, the announcement hardly came as a surprise. What did come as a surprise was the ministry’s apparent lack of knowledge about the position of its No. 1 ally regarding Taipei’s annual bid to join the world body.
When an anonymous ministry official said that “pragmatism” and “moderation” would be key to gaining US support for Taiwan’s UN bid, he obviously had no idea what he was talking about.
US government officials have stated time and again that Washington does not support Taiwan’s bid to join the UN. As US Senior Director for East Asian Affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) Dennis Wilder put it so succinctly last September: “Membership in the UN requires statehood. Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community.”
What did the ministry not understand about Wilder’s comments?
With no chance of support from its most powerful ally, it makes not a bit of difference what strategy the government and the ministry eventually decides upon for this year’s attempt, as this bid — like the 15 others before it — is already dead in the water.
This grim reality does not mean the government should give up though, as doing so would be to admit defeat.
Unlike membership in the World Health Assembly, which allows observer status for non-state bodies, there is no leeway in the criteria for UN membership — it is a nations-only club.
Ma has already suggested that a “pragmatic” solution for joining the WHO would be to use Taiwan’s Olympic moniker “Chinese Taipei,” but pragmatism should not be a consideration in the UN bid, as China has made it clear it will not permit Taiwan to become a member whatever name it uses, as to do so would be tantamount to admitting there are “two Chinas.”
The only reason for using such a title would be to pander to China’s sensibilities in the face of warming ties between the two sides. And while it may be acceptable to some to overlook sovereignty when it comes to things like cross-strait flights, economic ties and even health affairs, it is a different matter entirely when applying to the UN.
Abandoning sovereignty when applying to an organization that requires statehood for membership defies logic and goes against the wishes of the people who — believing his pre-election promises on protecting sovereignty — voted for Ma.
The Democratic Progressive Party administration came under fire for its “inflexible” attitude over its efforts to use the name “Taiwan,” but at least it stood for something concrete.
Applying to join the UN using a wishy-washy title such as “Chinese Taipei” would suggest that the KMT no longer believes in the sovereignty of the “Republic of China” (ROC).
If it chooses to ditch the ROC or Taiwan as national titles in favor of Chinese Taipei, the KMT — as the ruling party — becomes nothing more than a local government of China, and Taiwan a province of China.
Is this what most people who voted for Ma wanted?
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS