The US Congress and Australian and Dutch parliaments have passed motions rebuking the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for twisting the meaning of UN Resolution 2758. The EU Parliament late last month, in an overwhelming majority, voted to rebuke the CCP for its twisting and manipulation of the resolution, as well as to rebuke it for its military provocations aimed at Taiwan. The body went further in demanding that EU member states support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations.
Following the US-China trade dispute and the COVID-19 pandemic, the international community has become aware that Taiwan’s security is intimately tied to global prosperity and the general good. Because of this relationship, the world is paying increasingly closer attention to China’s attempts to threaten Taiwan militarily.
More countries support upholding the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait and are blaming China for sagging commodity prices and product dumping across the globe, while criticizing the CCP for its drive toward refashioning a new global economy in its image and auspices.
The international community is also becoming aware of China’s manipulation of the UN resolution, which only touches upon the right of Beijing to represent China in the UN. It has nothing to do with China’s territorial claims, nor Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Yet the CCP has twisted and reinterpreted it in documents posted across all corners of the Internet to make the dubious claim that “Taiwan is an inseparable part of China since ancient times.”
The historical reality is that the UN passed the resolution, which the regime of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) referred to as “conflating us with communist bandits,” as a way of gradually rebuilding a diametrically opposed world order in the aftermath of World War II. The rivalry between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union regarding which country would lead the communist world was growing more acrimonious by the day. The US was intent on “using China to rein in the Soviets,” making it harder to justify blocking the PRC’s entry into the UN, and consequently expelling representatives from the Republic of China (ROC).
Sadly, Chiang Kai-shek insisted that “gentlemen and thieves cannot coexist” — a refusal to accept other UN member nations’ offers to propose a two-China solution with the ROC seated in the UN as “Taiwan.” That not only led to Taiwan’s status as an “international orphan,” it also further emboldened the CCP to use its doctored interpretation of UN Resolution 2758 to declare to the world that China had sovereignty over Taiwan.
However, Taiwan has since democratized and sought renewed and unrestricted reconnection with its roots and identity through localization. That has created a vibrant community and political body, not subservient to China, and capable of recognition by the world at large.
It is time for Taiwan to clarify to the international community the true contents of UN Resolution 2758. Unfortunately, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is claiming that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is ideologically manipulating the nation, and that if the ruling party does not step back, it would delay a joint declaration to the UN.
While the international community continues to pass resolutions supportive of Taiwan, the KMT-led legislature is instead petrified at the prospect of enraging the CCP. The pan-blue camp’s stalling prevents Taiwan from speaking in a unified voice, causing Taiwan-friendly nations and allies to lose heart in Taipei and sap the confidence of Taiwanese.
Much was wrong about the authoritarian rule of the Chiangs, but they were right to maintain their stalwart opposition to the CCP, with their “three noes” policy of no contact, no negotiating and no compromise. However, their objective of “counterattacking and retaking the mainland” and ideology of “reunifying China under the Three Principles of the People” were simply delusional.
With the advancement of Taiwanese politics in the post-Chiang era, several ironic phenomena occurred. The Chiangs played their hand poorly with their authoritarian rule, creating the conditions for the emergence of the DPP, while former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) of the KMT, the nation’s first president born and raised in Taiwan, was a strong advocate for democratization and localization movements.
He pushed for the implementation of direct elections for the legislature and the presidency, to the extent that some people later referred to him as the father of Taiwan’s democracy.
Lee was blamed for the defeat of the KMT’s presidential candidate, vice president Lien Chan (連戰), in the 2000 election, and was expelled from the party. Clearly, elements within the KMT were not on the same page as Lee on the path Taiwan should take.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would later serve two terms in office, during which he promoted the so-called “1992 consensus,” a term that former KMT legislator Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000, ostensibly in the pursuit of peace in the Taiwan Strait, but actually with the intention of tying Taiwan closer to China.
During Ma’s tenure, cross-strait exchanges intensified, with Ma encouraging Taiwanese to invest in China, while the number of Chinese tourists increased dramatically.
However, Taiwan’s economy performed worse during that time than in recent history. By comparison, it was during former president Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration, when the CCP started its campaign of near-daily military intimidation and attempts at harming Taiwan’s economy, that Taiwan’s economic resilience in difficult circumstances caught the attention of the world.
The Chiangs could see straight through the CCP, and would not allow themselves to be taken in or manipulated by its “united front” attempts at annexing Taiwan.
Unfortunately, the KMT today has inherited the authoritarian policies of the Chiangs, and does not value Taiwan’s democracy. It leans more toward China’s authoritarian regime.
Not only is the KMT damaging Taiwan, it is also bringing shame to the legacy of the Chiangs that it purports to worship. At the same time, the “1992 consensus” that the pan-blue camp so assiduously clings to is outdated and completely at odds with the current cross-strait reality.
The pan-blue camp continues to insist that “each side has its own interpretation” of what “one China” means, even though the CCP does not recognize any other interpretation but its own.
The CCP has even run with it and produced Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) new formulation, suffixing it with “one China, two systems, Taiwan version.” The pro-China faction within the KMT refuses to face up to that.
The proportion of Taiwanese who support sovereignty and independence, and identify as Taiwanese has increased as the nation’s politics have evolved. They now make up the absolute majority of the population. By contrast, those who identify as Chinese and advocate for unification with China form a small minority. This is likely the main factor in the pan-blue camp’s consecutive losses in the past three presidential elections.
The DPP’s cross-strait policies are in line with the times and adjust to arising scenarios, which has gained them the public’s approval. The DPP was formed by multiple forces opposed to the KMT, and localization and democratic reforms were two of its major political demands. From the networking of democracy advocates during the Martial Law era to former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) call for “one country on each side of the Strait” to Tsai’s hybrid phrasing of “Republic of China, Taiwan,” there are few differences with the intrinsic nature of the “Republic of China on Taiwan” as espoused by Lee.
President William Lai (賴清德) in several important speeches explicitly stated there are two countries on either side of the Strait and that neither is subservient to the other.
Still, regarding the name “Republic of China,” which can be traced back to 113 years ago to the Wuchang Uprising that led to the Xinhai Revolution overturning the Qing Dynasty, Lai’s semantic usage shows that he does not deny the Chiangs’ arrival in Taiwan. His position is to keep with Taiwan’s ethnic composition and the nation’s historic development.
The CCP’s bullying of Taiwan is increasing daily with near-daily military drills surrounding the country, a rapid increase in China Coast Guard vessels patrolling Taiwanese waters off Kinmen and Lienchiang (Matsu) counties, and its attempt to redefine the Taiwan Strait as China’s internal waters.
In addition to the growing frequency of China’s operations in the South and East China seas, it is also aiding the pariah states of Russia and North Korea from the shadows. China’s ambitious brinkmanship behavior jeopardizes regional peace and the rules-based world order. This is why it has received much attention and rebuke from the free world.
However, despite the CCP being as jingoistic and adventuristic as it is, senior pan-blue camp figures are unable to break free from China’s alluring grip. Central KMT figures pay ideological reverence toward the CCP and are reticent to be on the receiving end of its wrath. Therefore the KMT continues to turn a blind eye toward China’s attempts at intimidation against Taiwan, instead embracing the CCP like a young child clinging to their parent’s leg. Such behavior has already put the KMT on an irredeemable road, and we ought to question whether it is worth it to support such a party and political camp.
Translated by Tim Smith and Paul Cooper
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS