Recent developments in the Legislative Yuan regarding UN Resolution 2758 are significant and alarming for observers of Taiwan’s democracy. The resolution stipulates that the People’s Republic of China, not the Republic of China (whose government moved to Taiwan in 1949 after its defeat in the Chinese Civil War), would represent China in the UN. While it does not explicitly state Taiwan’s sovereign status, China has consistently interpreted the resolution to mean that Taiwan is part of China.
For years, the West avoided challenging China’s interpretation, reflecting the US’ policy of “strategic ambiguity.” However, with changing geopolitical dynamics — such as the shift to “strategic competition” by the US and its allies — the stakes are being raised for Taiwan’s international standing. The US House of Representatives last year passed the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, affirming that UN Resolution 2758 does not refer to Taiwan. The Australian Senate and the Dutch House of Representatives also passed similar motions.
This should be good news. However, when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) proposed a motion for the three major parties in the Legislative Yuan to issue a joint statement about UN Resolution 2758, lawmakers from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) walked out.
Why would they do that? What does this mean for Taiwan’s democracy? What are the possible courses of action for the DPP government if it seeks to consolidate domestic support in joining the international movement to clarify UN Resolution 2758?
It is impossible to get inside the heads of the KMT and TPP lawmakers. However, some patterns can explain the situation.
The KMT, the party that fled to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1949, has long promoted a Chinese cultural identity and has regularly endorsed an appeasement approach toward China. The TPP, a relatively new party with a populist rhetoric, often operates with an obstructionist approach.
These patterns resurfaced in the opposition parties’ proposals on the resolution. The KMT’s proposal emphasized “stability in the Taiwan Strait” and downplayed Taiwan’s sovereignty, seemingly toeing the line with Beijing’s demand. The TPP’s proposal called on the Executive Yuan to “seek meaningful participation in international organizations,” but does not make a statement on the resolution itself.
This trend is concerning for Taiwan’s democracy. Since the lawmakers were sworn in May, the opposition parties have used democratic procedures to undermine Taiwan’s national security and democratic institutions.
Many KMT leaders act as collaborators with China, whitewashing China’s vows to annex Taiwan and promoting policies aligned with Beijing’s priorities, some academics said. The KMT and TPP also appear eager to undermine President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration. For example, on the first day of the new legislative session, the two opposition parties sent budget bills back to the Legislative Yuan’s Procedure Committee, causing unnecessary delays and chaos in the government for no reason. (Opposition legislators voted down the Cabinet’s budget bill for the second time on Tuesday, continuing the pattern of procedural delays to undermine the DPP’s governance.) When democratically elected lawmakers use democratic procedures to pass laws that threaten national security or reach dubious resolutions without meaningful bipartisan discussion, it creates a dangerous path toward illiberal democracy.
Given that the KMT and TPP have formed a majority voting bloc, what can the DPP government do to consolidate domestic support for its efforts to unify Taiwan’s voice regarding the resolution? In the short-term, there is little reason to expect changes in the Legislative Yuan’s patterns. However, the administration can do more to popularize and clarify the message that international support for Taiwan is growing. The narrative that Taiwan should reluctantly concede to China’s demands is driven by fear that the US and other Western democracies are not committed to supporting Taiwan. Western countries’ support for Taiwan is indeed contingent on their own national interests, but those interests align with Taiwan’s goal of increased international participation. If the public is made more aware of these shifts in global dynamics, citizens might feel confident in resisting China’s threats and supporting the government’s efforts to clarify the resolution. Unfortunately, the news about the US, Australia and the Netherlands passing motions to support Taiwan’s international participation was not widely broadcast in Taiwan, nor did the stories maintain a long news cycle or stir significant public discourse.
Moving forward, the government should work harder to ensure that these and related news stories reach and engage a broader segment of the public.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis, whose research addresses civil society, political cultures and medical sociology.
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