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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS