Tomorrow marks 53 years since then-US secretary of state William Rogers on Sept. 8, 1971, sent a four-page note to then-minister of foreign affairs Chow Shu-kai (周書楷) informing him that the Republic of China’s (ROC) banishment from the UN at an upcoming UN resolution was all but certain. However, if Taiwan worked with the US, there was a chance the nation could stay in the organization as a member of the General Assembly, while the People’s Republic of China (PRC) took its Security Council seat.
It was an opportunity that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, based on a stubborn adherence to a “one China” ideology, did not take up, causing long-term damage to the nation’s international status and visibility.
Taiwan continues to live with the consequences of the decision with its exclusion from the UN and UN-affiliated organizations.
Taiwanese leaders’ strategic myopia in forsaking pragmatism in favor of ideology offers lessons on the nation’s statecraft today. Obdurate insistence on a “one China” ideology — which many Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians still advocate — does not serve the nation’s interests, especially in international affairs.
Known as the “dual representation” solution — allowing the ROC and the PRC to both be UN members — Rogers wrote that while it was all but certain Taiwan no longer had the support of the General Assembly to retain its seat on the council, and if it were put to a vote, the PRC would certainly win, there was a chance the ROC could retain a place in the assembly through a resolution that would have affirmed PRC membership in the council and ROC membership in the general assembly.
However, despite the US’ best efforts, it was unable to drum up enough support.
“Despite our best efforts, we have been totally unable to assemble even a minimally acceptable list of cosponsors for the [dual] Representation Resolution,” Rogers said.
To garner enough support — other countries did not want to be on the wrong side of a losing vote — Rogers said that ROC diplomats needed to signal the nation’s willingness to vacate the council seat while staying in the UN as a member of the General Assembly — tantamount to accepting a “two Chinas” solution to the Chinese Civil War.
“Indeed, some countries have come to regard our willingness to include such a recommendation [that the PRC take the council seat] as a test of our seriousness in pressing ahead with all available means to make our approach prevail in the General Assembly,” he wrote.
Despite ROC diplomats being fully aware that the consequence of their inaction would be the nation’s banishment from the UN, they did not proceed.
On Oct. 25, 1971, the ROC lost a motion — known as Resolution 2758 — which decided on China’s representation at the UN. Immediately afterward, Chow stormed out of the assembly, so the dual representation motion never went to a vote. Taiwan was no longer in the UN.
The PRC is now distorting Resolution 2758, incorrectly asserting that it says that Taiwan is a part of China when it does not.
The 1971 debacle is a lesson on the importance of prioritizing national interest over ideology. It would have been much better to fight to stay in the UN than be ousted. Doing so would have given Taiwan more influence, legitimacy and visibility, and the nation could have had more leverage to chart its path in the world.
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
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS