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.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS