President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday said that he hoped Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) would secure a consensus among the three main legislative parties on a joint statement on Taiwan’s stance regarding UN Resolution 2758.
US officials and the parliaments of Australia, the Netherlands and Italy have spoken out about the fact that Resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan, does not touch upon the issue of whether the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has sovereignty over Taiwan, nor prevents Taiwan from seeking UN membership, so it would be a “serious issue” if Taiwan itself could not agree on a similar statement, Lai said during a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Central Standing Committee meeting.
Han had previously adjourned the discussion on the joint statement after the three parties — the DPP, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) — had proposed their own draft versions of a statement and sent the proposals for a second reading. He ran into some criticism for the adjournment, but the three parties have very different interpretations of what a statement should look like and, more importantly, different ideological reasons for this discrepancy.
It would take quite some hammering out between the three of them to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, if Lai really believes a consensus would look anything like a clear and straightforward denial of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) distorted interpretation of the resolution, he would likely be disappointed.
The DPP’s position is essentially in line with the US, Australian, Dutch and Italian statements, refuting the narrative being pushed by the CCP. Central to this argument is that the word “Taiwan” does not appear in the text of the UN resolution, which only undertakes to “expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek [蔣介石] from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.”
For the DPP, Taiwan has moved on from being governed by the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek.” The CCP contends that those “representatives” are a reference to the government of the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan.
The CCP’s position happens to be one that the KMT is locked into, as it insists for ideological reasons that the ROC government has continued to exist uninterrupted, even after its retreat to Taiwan in 1949.
This is reflected in the differing DPP and KMT proposals: The former calls for the UN to allow Taiwan to join; the latter calls on it to allow the ROC to rejoin.
For the KMT, the problem lies not so much in the CCP’s interpretation of Resolution 2758, but in the fact that it was allowed to exist in the first place.
The TPP would prefer to sidestep the issue of the wording of the resolution altogether; it is calling instead on the Lai administration to step up its efforts to secure UN membership for the nation, whether it is called Taiwan or the ROC. It believes this focus on the resolution’s wording and various interpretations is a costly sideshow that would not reap any practical benefits.
This position is not without sympathy among some academics in Taiwan, who question the actual gains from this obsession with the narrative, even though the support of foreign governments is welcome. If one wonders why so much time and effort should be spent on the narrative, one need only ask the CCP, which has expended a lot of effort to push its interpretation of UN Resolution 2758, and with renewed urgency.
In this, the CCP is correct. Narrative is important. Winning the argument is crucial. The Lai administration is right to put so much effort into securing a joint statement in line with the consensus being voiced by countries supportive of Taiwan.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS