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?
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS