On July 19, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon requesting that the nation be admitted to the body under the name "Taiwan," only to have Ban reject the request.
Ban's justification was that the 1971 UN Resolution 2758 granted UN representation for China to the People's Republic of China (PRC), thereby expelling the government of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from its illegally held seat. Actually, this resolution only decided who had the right to represent China.
Under the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) pushed to "return to the UN," but always by applying to have its authority restored under the name "Republic of China" (ROC).
In the first few years of the Chen administration, Taiwan's movement to join the UN continued to call for a "return" and ask that the UN make a new interpretation of Resolution 2758. As this road proved impassable, Taiwan later changed its strategy and began trying to "join" the UN rather than "return" to it. Therefore Chen's letter to Ban was just an amplification of the same approach.
It was interesting that Ban used the resolution, which he said had already decided the question of Chinese representation, to reject Taiwan's application. Taiwan has two points to protest.
First, countries applying to enter the UN as new members notify the secretary-general as a courtesy. The secretary-general is not authorized to reject it.
Second, Taiwan applied as a new member, thereby avoiding the question of representing China. The resolution that Ban cited applies to the question of who represents China, not the question of who represents Taiwan.
Based on these two points, Taiwan should extend the battle lines in its effort to join the UN. The ultimate goal would be to reach an international arbitration court to fight a lawsuit over Taiwan's position, and confirm that the resolution has no binding power over questions not concerning the right to represent China.
The KMT has proposed applying to return to the UN under the name "Republic of China," but Ban's recent actions prove that the movement to "return" may not only fail, but could also once again mire Taiwan in disputes over the right to represent China, while also confirming that an expanded interpretation of the resolution has the power to cover Taiwan.
Recently the KMT has attacked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs saying that its effort to enter the UN has humiliated the nation. This is probably because it is still under the illusion that the ROC can represent China, or at least that it can still enjoy shared authority over the seat with the PRC. Ban has certainly punched a hole in that dream.
But for the KMT the most unfortunate thing is not that the ROC can't play its old ROC card. Rather, it is that, while China praises Ban for violating procedures and citing an irrelevant resolution and scolds the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for promoting de jure independence, KMT Secretary-General Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) have both taken Beijing's side.
This kind of self-defeating behavior is a gift from heaven for the DPP and its presidential candidate, Frank Hsieh (
Li To-tzu is a legislative assistant.
Translated by Marc Langer
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