With the 79th session of the UN General Assembly set to hold its General Debate from Tuesday next week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Taiwan this year would focus on challenging and refuting China’s misinterpretation and misuse of UN Resolution 2758, highlighting its fight against China’s hegemonic diplomacy and lawfare to exclude Taiwan from international society.
UN Resolution 2758 states that the General Assembly recognizes “that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are the only lawful representatives of China to the UN” and “expel[s] forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and all the organizations related to it.” The resolution does not mention Taiwan at all. Nevertheless, it has been misused by Beijing as a tool to push its “one China principle” and to block Taiwan’s international engagement.
Nauru’s decision in January to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan on the grounds of UN Resolution 2758 and the “one China principle” demonstrated the risk that if the misunderstanding is not clarified soon, the cross-strait status quo that “neither Taiwan nor the PRC is subordinate to the other” would be subverted by China.
A growing number of democracies and like-minded states have begun questioning China’s false claims about Taiwan and UN Resolution 2758. Following the US House of Representatives’ passage of the Taiwan International Solidarity Act to counter China’s distortion of the resolution, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for China and Taiwan Mark Lambert in April openly expressed strong opposition to Beijing’s misrepresentation, and underlined that the resolution neither endorsed an international consensus on the “one China policy” nor “constitute a UN institutional position on the political status of Taiwan.” The German Marshall Foundation in Washington also released a research paper saying that China’s assertion that the resolution is the basis for its “one China principle” is a flawed legal assumption and argument.
The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) during its annual summit in July passed a model resolution on 2758 saying that it does not endorse the “one China principle” and that the lack of representation for millions of Taiwanese in the UN should be remedied. IPAC delegates vowed to pass similar resolutions in their respective countries. The summit was attended by 49 members from 24 countries.
Meanwhile, Australia was the first country whose senate unanimously passed a motion regarding the misinterpretation of UN Resolution 2758. The Dutch House of Representatives also passed a motion rejecting Beijing’s distortion of the UN resolution and requested that the Dutch government seek support for this position within the EU.
Since this year’s UN General Assembly’s theme is “Leaving no one behind: acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development and human dignity,” the government and civil groups in Taiwan have pledged to increase efforts in appealing to the UN and the international community to stop China from misrepresenting the resolution, as the UN has ironically left behind Taiwan’s 23.5 million people.
Regretfully, when Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers on Wednesday proposed passing a motion clarifying Taiwan’s stance on UN Resolution 2758, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party demurred and walked out of the meeting. This move should be considered as an acquiescence to China’s bullying and distortion of Taiwan’s sovereignty and international representation.
Taiwanese authorities should work with like-minded partners to explicate how to correctly interpret UN Resolution 2758 to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty. The public should also beware of Chinese toadies who are hindering Taiwan’s solidarity and facilitating the authoritarian regime’s efforts to isolate Taiwan.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
An article written by Uber Eats Taiwan general manager Chai Lee (李佳穎) published in the Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) on Tuesday said that Uber Eats promises to engage in negotiations to create a “win-win” situation. The article asserted that Uber Eats’ acquisition of Foodpanda would bring about better results for Taiwan. The National Delivery Industrial Union (NDIU), a trade union for food couriers in Taiwan, would like to express its doubts about and dissatisfaction with Lee’s article — if Uber Eats truly has a clear plan, why has this so-called plan not been presented at relevant