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
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