UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 has nothing to do with Taiwan, and it is downright despicable of China to attempt to obscure the issue by linking the resolution to its false claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
Adopted by the UN General Assembly on Oct. 25, 1971, Resolution 2758 recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, replacing the Republic of China (ROC).
The exact wording is: “[The UN decides] to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek [蔣介石] from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and in all the organizations related to it.”
By unseating “the second China,” then represented by Chiang’s regime, what the resolution accomplished was resolving the question of the right of who represented China. Nowhere in the resolution is Taiwan mentioned; it did not address the issue of Taiwan’s representation, let alone explicitly or implicitly recognize the PRC’s territorial claim to Taiwan.
Thus the WHO’s wrongful interpretation of the resolution in favor of China over Taiwan, as evidenced by its mention of the resolution and the “one China” principle in its invitation to Taiwan to attend the World Health Assembly (WHA) this month, is ultimately shameful.
The invitation to “Dr Chiang” — Minister of Health and Welfare Chiang Been-huang (蔣丙煌) — from WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍), includes the phrase “recalling the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) and WHA Resolution 25.1 [which expelled the ROC from the WHO in 1972] and in line with the ‘one China’ principle as reflected therein.”
The incident comes across as yet another brazenly sneaky attempt by Beijing to distort the resolution as it tries to justify its territorial claims over Taiwan.
This is not the first time China, via the hands of others, has employed such a dirty trick in its attempts to tie Taiwan’s hands and deny Taiwan an international presence.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in July 2007 rejected Taiwan’s UN membership application by repeating Beijing’s claim that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory.” He cited UN Resolution 2758 and added: “In accordance with that resolution, the United Nations considers Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.”
The US objected to Ban’s distorted reasoning and Washington “urged the UN Secretariat to review its policy on the status of Taiwan and to avoid taking sides in a sensitive matter on which UN members have agreed to disagree for over 35 years.”
“If the UN Secretariat insists on describing Taiwan as a part of the PRC, or on using nomenclature for Taiwan that implies such status, the United States will be obliged to disassociate itself on a national basis from such a position. It is crystal clear of US policy on Taiwan,” it added.
In 2011, then-US secretary of health and human services Kathleen Sebelius spoke up for Taiwan, saying that no UN agency had the right to unilaterally determine Taiwan’s status.
Indeed, no single international organization, the UN included, can unilaterally decide Taiwan’s standing, nor should China be given the ultimate say on the international stage to unilaterally decide Taiwan’s participation in global organizations.
However, it can be expected that China will continue trying to trick the international community into believing that Resolution 2758 binds Taiwan to it.
The incoming Democratic Progressive Party administration must heed the impact of Beijing’s distorted reasoning and take care not to give the international community any idea that it is acceptable to have Resolution 2758 made applicable to contemporary Taiwan.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS