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
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