Seventy-three percent of Taiwanese support applying for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." Hence, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government has pushed for a referendum on this question and promoted this internationally. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) also wants to ask Taiwanese if the nation should seek to "re-enter" the UN under the name "Republic of China," Taiwan or other practical titles that would facilitate a successful membership bid and uphold the nation's identity.
Although these referendum proposals have aroused the ire of China and opposition from the US, the two parties maintain that the referendums will be held. They held demonstrations on Sept. 15 to show their determination.
A referendum is a practice of direct democracy in which the people express their opinion on a certain issue. As members of a democracy, Taiwanese have the right to referendums. Since the UN referendum means that the 23 million Taiwanese -- citizens of a sovereign, independent country -- will let the world know that they want to join the UN, on what grounds would the US want to stop them from expressing their will?
That Taiwanese want UN membership is in itself no cause for criticism. But because UN membership is only open to states, Taiwan must apply for it as a state. To apply for UN membership under the name Taiwan could thus be reasonably interpreted by the US to mean that Taiwan wants to declare de jure independence and become a new country.
It is understandable that China is against de jure independence for Taiwan. But why is the US also opposed to it? It is because China threatens that if Taiwan declares independence, it will use "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan. The US could be dragged into this conflict, which could cause serious harm to US national interests.
But could it really be that Taiwanese can't do something we want to do because China and the US are against it? If doing so would enhance Taiwan's national interest as a sovereign state, then of course we have the duty to go through with it without hesitation. But are the referendums on applying for UN membership really in the nation's interest?
If Taiwanese pass such a referendum, does that mean that Taiwan can become a member of the UN? Does it help Taiwan's position in the international community? If we look at the UN Charter and the international state of affairs, I'm afraid the answer to both of these questions is likely no.
If Taiwan passes a referendum on applying for UN membership, the UN can still refuse to accept Taiwan's application with the argument that it is not a state and thus doesn't meet the requirements for membership. And even if the UN does accept the application, it will still be denied by the Security Council because China is one of the permanent members with veto power, so it wouldn't even be discussed by the General Assembly.
Taiwan has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states, which means that according to the rules laid down in the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Taiwan is a state and has the sovereign rights of a state. Not only do Taiwanese affirm that, but most countries in the world treat Taiwan like a state.
The only reason all these countries don't recognize Taiwan as such is not because Taiwan fails to meet any requirement for being a state, but because any country that wants diplomatic relations with China is pushed into accepting Beijing's "one China" principle.
In the end, the international community is an arena in which every country pursues its own interests. When Taiwan applies for UN membership, China strongly opposes it and also demands all other states to follow suit and declare their position. As a consequence of the threats -- or promises of gain -- from China's strong political, economic and military power, not only can Taiwan not become a member of the UN, but even the US says "Membership in the United Nations requires statehood. Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community," seriously harming Taiwan's interests.
The majority of countries have been forced to acknowledge that there is only "one China," but still continue to have substantial relations with de facto independent Taiwan.
This inconsistency between the legal and the actual has existed for several decades. Although the US has used harsh words against Taiwan, it has not, however, accepted China's position that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China.
Taiwanese should give serious thought as to whether in the foreseeable future there is the possibility of a breakthrough to Taiwan's advantage in this inconsistent state of affairs. If not, wouldn't it be better for Taiwanese, who are already sovereign, to bear with this inconsistency for awhile, rather than forcing the international community to break open this ambiguity and choose between China and Taiwan?
Some people say it took China more than 20 years to gain admission to the UN, and that Taiwan has only been trying for more than a dozen years. How can we get in if we don't apply?
Those who have studied China's entry into the UN understand that there is no proof that you will succeed if only you put your mind to something. On the contrary, it shows that every state only pursues its own interests and that when there is a major change in a situation, former allies can and do turn against each other.
It is true that because Taiwan isn't a member of the UN, Taiwanese have been denied their right to participate in international affairs. And because it isn't a member of the UN, Taiwan has been kept out of numerous functional organizations affiliated with the UN, like the WHO and the World Bank. Because Taiwan can't join such organizations, the health and welfare of Taiwanese are not protected as well as they should. But if Taiwan wants to escape this difficult situation, provoking or threatening the interests of friendly states is by no means an effective strategy.
While 78 percent of the public does not accept China's position that Taiwan cannot join the UN because it is part of China, it may be instructive to bear in mind that Taiwan was able to join the WTO because of its capacity as a "separate customs territory."
It is as in the serenity prayer: "God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change [at the moment], courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."
It is unfortunate for Taiwan that it is excluded from international organizations, but it is fortunate for its citizens that Taiwan is a de facto independent country that can control its own fate. It wouldn't be wise for Taiwan to lose what it has in pursuit of what it doesn't, would it?
But what can be done now that the process of holding a referendum is already started, and neither party will relent?
If people can tell the difference between advantages and disadvantages, what can be won and what can be lost, the referendum should be changed to the question: "Do you agree that the UN should not exclude Taiwan?" Such a question would fully enable Taiwanese to express their will and it would clearly not represent an attempt to change the "status quo."
Cho Hui-wan is an associate professor and chair of the Graduate Institute of International Politics at National Chung Hsing University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS