Refocused: Beijing, Burma, and the UN

In his article, "Burmese Blood is the UN's Shame," Professor Hu Shaojiang of the University of Cambrige's China Research Center reminds us of the real "shame" when it comes to the UN: the organizational composition of the UN allows powerful-yet-irresponsible nations with permanent seats on the Security Council to hijack the entire international political process.

There was essentially only one moment during the six decade-long history of the United Nations, Hu reminds us, that the UN was able to take firm action in response to an international crisis. That was when the Soviet Union boycotted a session of the General Assembly back in the 1950s, unintentionally clearing the way for the Western powers to lock in a vote in favor of fighting North Korea at the outset of the Korean War.

Before and ever since, virtually every renegade dictator, every despotic and backwards government to arise during the history of the UN has been able to find at least one supporter among the five permanent members of the Security Council. In his commentary, Hu illustrates the repeated political hamstringing that has resulted from this dynamic, paired with the notoriously gratuitous veto power enshrined in the UN Charter:

It is the totalitarian Chinese government that is supporting its counterpart in Burma. In fact, back in January, several democratic countries submitted a proposal that the United Nations pressure the military government in Burma to stop political repression. However, China and Russia, as permanent members of the Security Council, vetoed the proposal.

On the eve of the crackdown against monks and civilians in September, a number of countries had proposed a U.N. resolution calling for restraint in Burma, to prevent a repeat of the brutal suppression that occurred in Burma 19 years ago. But again China's opposition put the proposal on the shelf. With the support of big brother China, the Burmese military leaders were especially violent in suppressing the protests.

The United Nations accomplished nothing toward protecting the legal rights of Burma's citizens, once again revealing its incapability in dealing with major international affairs. As a matter of fact, since the United Nations was founded it has almost never played a decisive role in major international issues.

The only exception was in the early 1950s when the United Nations discussed whether or not to fight against the North Korean regime led by Kim Il Sung, which had invaded South Korea. Because the former Soviet Union made a wrong decision and did not attend the meeting, the United Nations had a good opportunity to exercise justice.

During the Cold War period, there was no understanding and no forgiveness among the superpowers. The United Nations didn't have the chance to work even in a superficial function as a rubber stamp. This situation hasn't really improved substantially even now that the Cold War is over.

. . . and so on, and so forth.

It is this same veto power, of course, that has been the central factor in barring Taiwan's government from even observer status in the UN all these years since 1971. Yet political disenfranchisement pales in comparison to the horrendous atrocities that are allowed to run their course, as concerned nations with a respect for international law feel they must pass the buck to the UN for action, only to run into the recurring truth that the UN is inherently unable to act.

China's government repeatedly reminds us that an unrestricted veto is more power than any member of the United Nations is fit to singularly wield. As Hu states:

"Equality among countries" is not equivalent to "equality among governments." If we let totalitarian governments enjoy the same rights as democratic ones that are elected by their citizens' free choice, it is humiliating to people who are deprived of their rights under totalitarian governments. . . .if a country violently suppresses its people's right to participate in political affairs, that country's right to speak and participate in international affairs should be taken away.

Currently, each individual UN Resolution, no matter how token in nature, can be tossed out at the drop of a hat without the slightest need of justification. At the very least, it would seem reasonable for the individual veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council to be replaced with, say, a single veto that can only be wielded by a 3-2 vote or with the unanimous consent of all five members.

Only when the world's majority of humanitarian, peaceful-minded nations are free to act in concert despite the dissent of a small minority of powerful despots will the UN be a politically relavent institution, and the reward for every nation will be a more peaceful and democratic globe.

Thinly Veiled Threats

Some great commentary from journalist Ian Williams has been up on the Guardian's website since Monday. Apparently Mr. Williams got a little phone call from Beijing's Bureau of Public Diplomacy - Mobster Division:

Bullying and diplomacy
Ian Williams
September 17, 2007 8:30 PM


Last week I got a personal taste of Beijing's diplomacy. Their mission to the United Nations called me up and warned at the beginning and end of a 20 minute impromptu telephone debate that if I appeared on a panel with Taiwan's "so-called" President Chen Shui-bian they would "take it very seriously."

Around the world, most governments seem to quail in the face of such implied threats. In contrast, seeing no sign of Chinese gunboats in the East River, and reckoning that the worst that could happen was my missing the 2008 Olympics, the bluster reinforced my determination.On Friday I appeared not only with President Chen on a video link but with John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, in person, and on Saturday on a platform with the Taiwanese sea-goddess Matsu, flown over on her own seat to New York.

I was thinking that if Bolton and I could agree on any issue, Matsu may have been working hard on the miracle front. She will have to work even harder to get Beijing in a reasonable mode.
China's diplomat told me that Chen was a trouble-maker, and took even more umbrage when I pointed out that in fact it was the mainland that was pointing almost a thousand missiles at Taiwan, and not the other way round. "We will consider that you support Taiwanese independence," she accused ominously. Actually, I pointed out that I was neutral on that question, which was up to the Taiwanese to decide, but that I did strongly support their right to decide, just as I had vociferously supported the right to self determination of the Timorese, the Sahrawis of the Western Sahara, Palestinians and Kosovans.

"That is in violation of international law," she snapped. Well, no, I pointed out. Self-determination for former colonial territories was a basic principle of the United Nations, and indeed Mao told Edgar Snow, as reported in Red Star Over China, that Formosa - as Taiwan was then known - would be able to choose its own destiny when Japan was defeated.
The PRC is more used to an attitude of "whatever you say, comrade," than being argued with, and it all just seemed to make her angrier. However, as often, the discussion made me think. Possibly the worst way to dissuade people who are determined to secede is to try to bully them. I pointed out that if forty years ago Spain had made nice with the Gibraltarians, then by now the people on the Rock would be petitioning to join Spain and buy all those giveaway fincas along the coast.

If the British had given Ireland dominion status before the first world war, Mrs Windsor would likely be making annual visits to open the Irish parliament. In contrast , much later in the century, London had conceded bilingualism, and Welsh radio and TV and in the end almost had to force the Welsh to accept devolution.

The negative examples, from Timor to Kosovo are quite clear. Battering people into loyalty is a highly ineffective strategy.

So why should anyone worry about a small faraway island of which we know little? Well of course, there is the little matter that Taiwan is a democracy, whose people want to choose their own fate, but experience teaches us that defending democracy usually only works politically in conjunction with less altruistic motives.

Well, there is one serious matter of self-interest for much of the globe. Of course it is a bit much to expect a joined-up foreign policy from the Bush administration but even so I was shocked to discover that Washington, kowtowing to Beijing, has almost no official contacts with Taiwan - even though the US is committed to defending the island against Chinese attacks. They restricted President Chen to a 15 minute stopover in Alaska on his last trip back from central America. They do not allow him to visit Washington. That is seriously worrying. US should keep its word to Taiwan. But the signals it is currently sending to China, of acquiescence to its policies towards the island, are reminiscent of those Margaret Thatcher sent to Galtieri of Argentina over the Falklands. But any conflict resulting would be far, far bigger than a side show in semi-arctic islands full of sheep and penguins.

General Committee keeps Taiwan membership off the Agenda

UN General Assembly President Kerim opens the 62nd Session

(UN Photo/Marco Castro)

Wednesday, around 10 AM Eastern Time, the UN General Committee convened to deliberate over and finalize the agenda for the 62nd UN General Assembly. 16 of Taiwan's allies had proposed August 14 in a written document that Taiwan's application for membership be added for consideration to the GA's agenda. Before voting on this measure, the chairman (also the President of the General Assembly: Srgjan Kerim of Macedonia) suggested that it be debated with representative arguments from two supporters of Taiwan membership and two of its detractors.

Palau, one of Taiwan's Pacific allies, voiced its opposition to the chairman's proposal, stating that the floor should be left open for all interested parties to have a voice in the debate. Sri Lanka, one of the PRC's allies, voiced its support for the chairman's suggestion. The chairman's proposal for a "2 v. 2" debate was put to a vote and passed, 34 countries in favor and 3 against.

In the ensuing debate, St. Vincent and the Grenadines took the floor first on behalf of Taiwan, followed by China, after which spoke Taiwan's ally the Solomon Islands, and lastly Egypt, which was in opposition to adding the item to the General Assembly agenda.

No consensus was reached on whether to add the item to the agenda, therefore the Chairman dismissed the item and the issue of Taiwan's application for UN membership was not allowed to be openly debated in the General Assembly this year.

Those were the proceedings and, this being Friday, the "failure" of Taiwan's fifteenth consecutive application to the UN is allready old news. We apologize in our tardiness for putting off this post.

Our analysis is that, although China is continuing to successfully bar Taiwan from the UN, it had better be careful, as each year's victory may become increasingly pyrrhic. China's severe whip-cracking in the UN when it comes to this issue may get the job done, but many countries may start to chafe at the incessant pressure to openly ignore the ideals of open dialogue and equal representation upon which the United Nations is based.

Furthermore, this is backward motion if China ever hopes to endear itself with the Taiwanese. China may be holding off on taking military action to get what they want (because they can't), but Beijing sure isn't making any progress towards a political resolution in the meantime. Every year that common citizens on Taiwan go without international representation is another year that Taiwanese get increasingly estranged from their mainland neighbor.

And what was the deal with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during this whole process anyway? The Secretariat continues to cling to its ludicrous interpretation of Res. 2758 even though any first-year law student or even a high school senior on the mock trial club could deduce that the logic behind the UN's so-called One China Policy is absolutely bogus.

As we said before, Secretary-General Ban's job wasn't that difficult: he merely had to pass the letter along to the Security Council where it would surely be defeated by China's veto. If Ban is in the China pocket (the only explanation we can think of), why would China be so paranoid as to request that the Secretary-General risk his legitimacy simply to create a second layer of defense for what is allready admittedly a fool-proof firewall? It's proof of China's characteristic authoritarian paranoia and an embarrasment to the organization as a whole.

China loves to point the finger and portray Taiwan as the irresponsible "agitator" vis-à-vis the status quo, when in reality, Taiwan's government is cautiously attempting to extricate its people from political limbo while China continues to shrug off the idea of participating in global trade and politics with even a modicum of responsibility. When will the double-standard end?

At Zero Hour, Indian Academic Weighs In

Yesterday an op-ed piece by Ramesh Thakur, a professor at the University of Waterloo and former senior vice rector of the UN University in Tokyo, appeared in the Times of India supporting Taiwan's application for UN membership. Mr. Thakur's essay follows:

Membership to the United Nations is supposed to be open to ‘all peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and are able and willing to carry out these obligations’. The 51 founding members were the original coalition of the able and willing, but things have come a long way since. Those both able and willing are not able to be members, even as it would appear that the UN has adopted a liberal approach to membership.

Over the years, the desire to have at least one international organisation aspiring to universal representation of the full human family trumped all doubts and hesitations. The member-ship has accordingly almost quadrupled to 192.

This remarkable growth, however, does not mean the membership issues have been settled. In some cases the battle over membership took the form of representation. An especially egregious example was Cambodia when the western and South East Asian countries preferred to recognise and deal with the murderous Khmer Rouge rather than Hun Sen regime.

Taipei represented China since the inception of the UN to 1971, even as the communists were ruling China. This continued because the Cold War was raging, the West controlled the numbers and called the shots in the United Nations.

However, the more things change, the more they remain the same. As China took its rightful place, Taiwan was made to 'disappear'. In July, Taiwan’s bid for UN membership was unceremoniously rejected.

More than an international bureaucracy and a forum for engaging in intergovernmental trench warfare, the UN represents an idealised world in which nations work together harmoniously for the common good. Values are central to its identity. That is why corruption, fraud and sexual misconduct by UN personnel are so damaging. While the oil-for-food scandal was mostly a media beat-up, financial and sexual misconduct by UN peacekeepers is more pervasive and has been going on for a longer period than the organisation is prepared to admit. Because it will not admit to the scale, it cannot get rid of the problem.

The biggest and longest running scandal is the way in which Taiwan has been banned from the UN. Taiwan is refused membership, is not granted observer status, and does not figure in the UN’s statistical databases.

On July 19, Taiwan submitted, yet again, its application for admission to the UN. It satisfies all the normal criteria of a state: territory, people and effective control by a stable government. But on July 23 the UN Office of Legal Affairs returned the application. The decision has little to do with the merits of the application and everything to do with the geopolitics of China as a permanent member of the Security Council.

Where does this leave all the fine talk of democracy, human rights and self-determination in Kosovo, East Timor and elsewhere? Taiwan is better credentialled than most of them. Its population of 23 million is almost the combined total of Australia and New Zealand, and bigger than scores of UN member states, including East Timor (under one million) and Kosovo (over two million).

In his impressive campaign for the post of UN secretary general, Ban Ki Moon made much of the fact that he is from a country that has actually made the transition from poor to high-income and from an authoritarian to a democratic regime.

Like South Korea, Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and a dynamic economy. Both countries embody fundamental UN ideals, values and aspirations.

As Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhe-nitsyn noted, the United Nations is the place where the peoples of the world are often served up to the designs of governments. Ban was memorably described by an unnamed diplomat as having hit the ground stumbling in January. He could redeem himself by speaking up for the rights of Taiwanese to determine their own destiny and the duty of the international community to respect their choice.

Taiwan Hindered in Helping Environment

Today the Taipei Times reports on how delegates from Taiwan's Environmental Protection Agency, after being invited to participate in the Basel Convention on Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (fun title), were turned away upon arrival because their idendification documents had been issued by the Taiwan government:

The administration sent a total of six representatives to the Basel Convention this year. Two of them returned to Taiwan early on Sunday and told reporters about the situation.

Lai Ying-ying (賴瑩瑩), a senior specialist at the EPA's waste management department, said the convention was mainly attended by professionals to discuss the latest technology for handling hazardous waste.

Lai said that the administration submitted an online application to the UN Secretariat before departing for the convention. To avoid sensitive political issues, the administration applied under the name of the Institute of Environment and Resource (IER), a non-governmental group that is partially supported by the EPA.

Lai noted the Basel Secretariat in Geneva had also sent them a confirmation e-mail upon receipt of their application, telling representatives to bring a copy of the e-mail to the registration department to get badges.

However, Lai said that the Taiwanese representatives were denied entry to the convention after they showed the registration officials their passports, and were told that there had been a change in regulations governing the admission of observers.

Based on a report issued last Friday by the UN Environment Programme, the UN Security and Safety Section in Geneva had advised that representatives from Taiwan "could not be accredited to participate at the current session because their accreditation documents had been issued by Taiwan, which is not a Member State of the United Nations."

The report said the Secretariat of the Basel Convention in Geneva "had been surprised" by the situation, as the rule had never been applied previously and Taiwan had made useful contributions on the issue of e-waste.

This is a textbook example of how the United Nations is going overboard in its efforts to please China and snub Taiwan at every turn. It also underscores China's general disconcern for issues pertaining to the environment, world health, or any of the other numerous issues UN bodies are created to address. Taiwan is a major playor in the electronics industry, as this article points out -- and yet China could care less if the convention doesn't benefit from the islands expertise with handling electronic waste. Apparently the UN also doesn't care, or at least not enough to refrain from kow-towing to Beijing at every turn.

President Chen at AEI, Presidents Bush and Hu at APEC

Initially, reports coming out of the bilataral meeting between American and Chinese Presidents George Bush and Hu Jintao suggested that the two leaders had sidestepped the issue of Taiwan while speaking on the sidelines of the APEC meeting in Sydney. Major topics of discussion were initially reported as Chinese product safety (graciously brought up by President Hu without any prodding from the U.S. side), artificially low valuation of the yuan, North Korea and -- 'oh yes, Mr. President, would you be so kind as to attend the Beijing Olympics next summer?' (Bush is reportedly planning to leave international politics in the States and attend the Games as a sports fan).

Yet a second wave of news coverage published this morning brought to light for us two new aspects of the Bush-Hu bilateral talks: an agreement to establish what sounds like a Cold War-style military hotline between Washington and Beijing and President Hu voicing his concern over Taiwan.

The hotline strikes us as good news, instantaneous and direct dialogue is the best way to prevent misunderstanding during times of heightened tensions between global powers (unfortunately, Beijing has a past record of mysteriously not answering Washington's phone calls when Sino-U.S. tensions are high -- just because Mr. Bush no longer has to "dial" when he reaches for the reciever doesn't mean that Beijing is going to pick up).

Not so good news from yesterday's meeting comes in the form of President Hu's ominous remarks on Taiwan, reported this morning in the Washington Times:

"This year and next year are a period of high danger for the Taiwan situation," Mr. Hu told Mr. Bush in bilateral talks, according to a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman.

"We must give stronger warnings to the Taiwan authorities," Liu Jianchao quoted the Chinese President as saying. "We cannot allow anyone to use any means to split Taiwan from the motherland."

We ask readers to take into account two aspects of President Hu's language:

1) Hu speaks of the "period of high danger" as though he is a weatherman reporting a high frequency of thundershowers over the weekend -- it can't be helped, that's just the way it is! In other words, President Bush, feel free to forget that China is the physical source of all this heightened danger.

2) We may be going out on a limb here, but refering to your country as the "Motherland" while speaking with the President of the United States (often referred to as the 'Leader of the Free World') -- probably not the best idea. Such lingo tends to reboot your average American brain and fill it with memories of our former adversary, the Soviet Union, bringing to mind stereotypical McCarthy-era images of vodka-swilling generals behind the Iron Curtain extolling the virtues and immortal greatness of 'Mother Russia' while grinding the liberties of the Common Man into the dirt with their patent leather boots.

In condensed form: refering to your country as the Motherland; Fatherland; Parental Gaurdianland . . . not the best way to ingratiate yourself with any American leader.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch (ie: back in the virtual ether, where the image and words of President Chen were being beamed via satellite into the top-story conference room at the American Enterprise Institute, which held an event on Taiwan's bid for UN membership yesterday), President Chen was refusing to give any ground on UN membership or the referendum, laying out clearly and concisely at the well-publicized event Taiwan's rational for persisting in the pursuit of both of these. Fairly well-timed, the AEI event seems to have stirred up a new round of public discourse over cross-Strait relations during a period when coverage of the issue seemed to be flagging.

For video of the conference, you can visit this page on AEI's website. Click the video link on the right of the page.

We poked around for some web video coverage of the APEC bilateral meeting (found plenty on the security-flaunting stunt put on by the cast of Chasers yesterday) but were unable to come up with anything so far. We'll take another shot at it soon.

Chris Nelson attended the AEI conference yesterday and, as perhaps Washington's top non-governmental Asia-Pacific insider, was hounded by reporters after the session. Nelson tips his hat in yesterday's Nelson Report to many of the hard-to-argue-with-both-legally-and-morally points made by Chen at the conference, but (Congressman Rohrabacher's effusive support nothwithstanding) seems to think things are going to get rougher between Taipei and Washington before they get better:

Taiwan's president Chen delivered an emotional but legalistic explanation and defense of why he will continue to pursue a national referendum on whether to pursue UN membership under the name "Taiwan", despite firm US opposition.

Chen seems to calculate that if there is a large enough public vote for the referendum next March, as planned, then a ground swell of pressure will be created on the Bush Administration to, at a minimum, stop criticizing Chen's various efforts to redefine Taiwan's international space.

No serious observer of US-Taiwan and US-China relations thinks such a plan has any chance of success, regardless of the vote, so a continued rise in tensions between
Washington and Taipei seems inevitable...with clear risks for all involved.

. . .

We'll discuss all this below, but will briefly note that it looks to us as though the US, China, and Taiwan are now locked into very different definitions of the "status quo" which increasingly conflict, and which by their very structure make maintaining the peaceful status quo increasingly difficult.

. . .

We thought there were many aspects of President Chen's presentation this morning which, from a strictly legal or strictly moral, or even strictly logical point of view, you couldn't argue much.

Who in this country is opposed to the legitimate exercise of democracy? Who doesn't
wish more democracy, more respect for the rule of law in China?

But we thought that the potentially most revealing thing Chen said and did...something which the AEI panel gamely tried to pass off with mild jokes about alternative song titles...was to actually recite word for word as his "credo" in this
matter, the lyrics from "Man of LaMancha" in which the doomed hero, Don Quixote,
says he is prepared to end up in Hell, so long as he fights the good fight and
dies with a clean conscience.

So that's about all we have for you at the moment. Yesterday was a big day in cross-strait relations and for Taiwan's UN bid -- surely there will be more news on the subject to come.

On a side note: Rest in peace, Luciano Pavarotti -- you touched the world with your voice and persona, and you really knew how to bring an audience to its knees. Nessun dorma 4 Life!

"I think a life in music is a life beautifully spent, and this is what I have devoted my life to." -LP

United States coerces China to back down on UN vote

News from early this morning:

Taipei - China, under pressure from the United States, has dropped a plan to initiate a United Nations vote affirming that Taiwan is part of China, a Taiwan newspaper said on Wednesday.

The China Times, in a dispatch from Washington DC, said China has canceled the plan for the UN vote. China now says that it is UN members' consensus that Taiwan is part of China, so there is no need for a vote.

In a nine-point clarification, the US told the UN that the assertion, 'Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China,' is not the consensus of the majority UN members, and is not the consistent policy of the US.

Washington has conveyed this stance to both the UN and Taipei, the mass-circulation Chinese-language paper said.

China originally planned to ask UN members to vote on the statement, 'Taiwan is part of China,' to block Taiwan's bid to join the UN. . .

© 2007 DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

This is a major development, as an affirmative vote on the statement "Taiwan is part of China", when linked with the Resolution 2758 statement that the "representatives of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations" would have more or less permanently closed the door to UN membership for Taiwan. Undoubtedly, more details on how the U.S. was able to lean on China and convince the PRC to give up the proposed vote will follow.

Interestingly enough, China used essentially the same justification to back away from this vote that Taiwanese politicians use in regards to declaring Taiwan's independence. Taiwan leaders will say that there is no need to declare independence because Taiwan is allready an independent country. China is now saying that there is no need to put "Taiwan is a part of China" to a vote in the UN, because it is allready a commonly accepted view by the majority of UN members. The United States explicity rejected this assertion in a nine-point clarification, saying "'Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China,' is not the consensus of the majority UN members, and is not the consistent policy of the US."

Taiwan's worthiness

This op-ed piece is by Minister Shieh Jhy-wey of Taiwan's Government Information Office and was published this morning in the Washington Times - to view the original article, click here.

Taiwan's Worthiness

Proclaiming the determination of Taiwan's 23 million people to take their rightful place in the family of nations, President Chen Shui-bian submitted an application for membership in the United Nations to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on July 19. In response, a U.N. secretariat spokesperson told the press on July 23 that Taiwan's application "could not be received and was, thus, returned" in keeping with "the one-China policy of the United Nations" supposedly enshrined in General Assembly Resolution 2758.

This behavior is shocking, both for its arrogance and its ignorance.

The U.N. Charter and U.N. procedural rules unambiguously stipulate that the secretary-general shall immediately refer membership applications to the Security Council. The Security Council must deliberate the matter and make a recommendation to the General Assembly, whose members are to discuss the matter and vote on it. Therefore, with the aforementioned action, the U.N. secretariat has in effect co-opted the deliberative and decision-making powers of the U.N. member-states.

Equally disturbing is the fact that this action taken by the U.N. chief grossly misconstrues both the nature of Taiwan's membership application and the import of Resolution 2758. Taiwan's application in no way constitutes a challenge to the right of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) to represent China, nor does Resolution 2758 state that Taiwan is a part of China.

After suffering under martial law over the course of 38 years until 1987, the people of Taiwan have since then created a vibrant democracy. Taiwan was rated Asia's most free country by Freedom House in its "Freedom in the World" 2006 report.

Perhaps U.N. officials have been misled by the past actions of the now-defunct, authoritarian party-state government of the Republic of China (ROC). The old regime, led by Chiang Kai-shek, claimed that it was the sole legitimate government of China. Unwilling to coexist with the PRC in the U.N., it withdrew from the world body in 1971 just before Resolution 2758 was passed.

The democratic government of today's Taiwan makes no such claim to govern China, and it is quite happy to coexist and cooperate with the PRC government in every way possible. Although our country is still saddled with the official name "Republic of China," the great majority of us identify ourselves as "Taiwanese" and call our country "Taiwan" — as, indeed, virtually everyone else in the world does.

For this reason, and in order to underline the fact that Taiwan makes no pretense of vying for the right to govern China, Mr. Chen's application requests "the admission of Taiwan," not the Republic of China, "as a member of the United Nations." This follows the well-established precedent set by current U.N. member-states of participating in the U.N. and other international organizations under names that differ from domestically used or constitutional names.

Irrespective of the status of Taiwan, the Taiwan Strait is indisputably one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints. Given that China continuously threatens to launch a war of annexation, has deployed a thousand missiles targeted at Taiwan and refuses to talk directly with the democratically elected government in Taipei, it devolves to the United Nations to fulfill its role of international peacekeeper in the region. At the very least, the United Nations should facilitate communications between all parties who have a stake in preserving peace in East Asia before a crisis situation develops.

U.N. organizations and officials must therefore cease allowing themselves to be intimidated by the totalitarian PRC government into making unwise decisions. In particular, they must stop kowtowing to Beijing's claims concerning the status of Taiwan. Taiwan is not a province of the People's Republic of China, nor is Taiwan part of a "divided China" comprised of PRC and ROC segments.

The U.N. Charter mandates membership for all states. Taiwan is indisputably a sovereign state, having for nearly six decades fulfilled all of the criteria for statehood stipulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Unlike the PRC, Taiwan is also a state in which sovereignty rests in the hands of the people, as prescribed by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, all nations that champion the rule of law, freedom and human rights are morally bound to support the cause of U.N. membership for Taiwan. We will never trade freedom for tyranny.

Op-ed: Taiwan's statehood is undeniable

An op-ed posted today on the Taipei Times website and written by Chen Lung-chu, chairman of the Taiwan New Century Foundation, president of the Taiwanese Society of International Law, and a professor at the New York Law School:

Taiwan's statehood is undeniable

In terms of international law, Taiwan has not been a part of China since 1895. Taiwan has ecome a country through a continuous process of evolution. In the process of democratization and Taiwanization -- and thanks to the effective self-determination of its people -- Taiwan has evolved from a territory under military occupation following World War II to a country with the sovereignty and independence of a nation-state. This theory of Taiwan's evolution into a state conforms to historical developments, changing political conditions and the dynamic character and principles of international law. I support this theory of evolved nationhood, which I described previously on this page ("The evolution of Taiwan's statehood," Aug. 9, page 8).
There are other theories regarding Taiwan's international legal status in addition to the evolutionary theory of statehood.

One theory is that Taiwan is part of China. This is what the People's Republic of China (PRC)argues, citing history, the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, succession to the Republic of China (ROC), UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, and that "Taiwan is an internal affair of China," to support its position.

Yet Beijing's argument fails the tests of both reality and international law, for the following reasons.

One, Taiwan has been fought over by foreigners for hundreds of years, while the Taiwanese have battled for their existence and self-governance. There have been the indigenous peoples and the Han Chinese, the Dutch and Spanish colonial empires competing over Taiwan, Cheng Cheng-kung's (鄭成功) family dynasty, the nominal rule of the Qing dynasty (which ceded Taiwan to Japan shortly after making it a province), the brief establishment of the Republic of Formosa, 50 years of Japanese colonial rule and the military occupation following World War II.
Taiwan has evolved into a sovereign and independent nation. Clearly, Taiwan has not been "an inseparable part of China since ancient times."

Two, as for ownership of Taiwan's territory, the Cairo and Potsdam declarations were overridden by the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco with Japan. The Taiwan that Japan gave up in the treaty, including the Penghu Islands, belonged to neither the PRC nor the ROC. No wonder Beijing has avoided bringing up the treaty, which carries the most weight in international law.

Three, when the PRC was established on Oct. 1, 1949, the ROC had "militarily occupied" Taiwan on behalf of the Allied forces but not acquired sovereignty over or ownership of Taiwan. It is impossible for the PRC -- nor does it have the right -- to inherit powers that the ROC never had.

Four, UN Resolution 2758 does not accede that Taiwan is a part of the PRC.

Five, since its founding the PRC has never effectively controlled, ruled or exercised jurisdiction over Taiwan. By international law, Taiwan is not an "internal affair of China" but a question of international concern.

Taiwan and the PRC are two different countries, therefore the dispute over Taiwan's legal status involves interpretations of international agreements and international law; the PRC's threats toward Taiwan jeopardize peace in the Asia-Pacific region and the world; China's "Anti-Secession" Law violates international law; and Taiwan's future involves the effective implementation of the principles of self-determination enshrined in international law, and will affect the fundamental human rights and wellbeing of 23 million Taiwanese.

The second theory about Taiwan's international status is that it was left undetermined. According to the Treaty of San Francisco, which took effect in 1952, Japan officially gave up all rights, title and claims over Taiwan. Yet the treaty did not stipulate who Taiwan would belong to.

Thus, Taiwan does not belong to China, and its international legal status is still undetermined.
The ideal way to resolve this problem is to apply the principle of self-determination of the people stipulated in the UN Charter by holding a national plebiscite under the auspices of the UN and let the people of Taiwan decide. But international and domestic political constraints have prevented this from happening. Therefore, there are still many proponents of this theory today.

The third theory is that Tai-wan's position was undetermined in the past and remains undetermined now. Some say Taiwan is still under the military occupation of the ROC; some say the US has sovereignty over Taiwan because it was the main victor over Japan; still others think sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese people, but that Taiwan still is not a country because the ROC has not ceased to exist and the Taiwanese government has not declared independence.

This theory is a rigid interpretation of international law, and ignores that the formation and application of international law is dynamic. There have been major developments worldwide since 1952, just as there have been in Taiwan. Taiwan's international position cannot be frozen as if it were still 1952.

As Taiwan's international position has evolved from undetermined to determined, the expression of the Taiwanese collective democratic has played a crucial part in the successes Taiwan has achieved.

Even if Taiwan's position remains undetermined and it continues to be occupied by the ROC, one cannot ignore the reality that the ROC has undergone "Taiwanization" which has changed the nature of its military occupation.

The US never advocated having sovereignty over Taiwan after Japan gave it up at the end of the war. The Taiwan Relations Act treats Taiwan practically as a country.
Since Japan gave Taiwan up, the assertion that sovereignty belongs to all of its residents conforms to the principles of sovereignty being in the people and self-determination enshrined in international law.

Is the ROC extinct? When did it die? Opinions are especially divided on this issue. As Taiwan has evolved into a sovereign nation, it is worth considering whether or not it needs a US-style declaration of independence. Applying to become a member state of the UN using the name "Taiwan" is both in form and substance an active declaration that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country.

The fourth theory is that Tai-wan has de facto independence, but it still does not have de jure independence.

The standards for differentiating between de facto and de jure independence are quite vague. Is it determined by the quality and size of the countries that recognize the country? Or what degree of universal recognition must be reached before a country has de jure independence? From the examples of the more than 100 countries that have achieved independence over the past half century, this kind of differentiation has become meaningless.

According to international law, countries enjoy sovereign equality and independence regardless of their size, strength, wealth, which countries recognize them or how many diplomatic allies they have.

Taiwan has evolved from an occupied territory into a country, but it is still not a normal country. The reality is that Taiwan represents our state and the "Republic of China" is an illusory title which creates divisions in national identification and makes it more difficult for Taiwan to progress internationally. The international community uses the name "Taiwan" but objects to Taiwan's government and its people using that same name, which is utterly unreasonable.

Taiwan needs to normalize itself. Turning Taiwan into a normal country both in name and in fact is the true path for Taiwanese to follow.

translated by Marc Langer

Korea Times: Taiwan's Bid to Join UN

Frank Ching authored an editorial that ran today in the Korea Times. An excerpt follows:

For months, President Chen Shui-bian has been talking about the importance of holding a referendum to see if the 23 million people of Taiwan would support the government applying to join the United Nations not under its formal name, the Republic of China, but under the name Taiwan.

So vigorously has Chen championed this cause that even the opposition Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang, is now in favor of holding a referendum on the island joining the United Nations and the name that it should use.

However, any referendum, if it is going to be held, will not be conducted until next year, probably in conjunction with the presidential election in March. It came as something of a surprise, therefore, to discover that President Chen has jumped the gun and sent a letter to the United Nations Secretariat applying to join the United Nations, and to do so in the name Taiwan. If he could do this anyway, without benefit of a referendum, then why was there so much fuss about holding a referendum?

Also, in the past, Taiwan did not submit an application until September, when the General Assembly begins its annual session. This time, why did Chen not wait for September when it can be done properly by going to the General Assembly rather than approaching Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon?

The answer to both questions is politics,

As you may have gleaned from this opening narrative, the editorial is more than a bit critical of the tactics employed by Chen and the R.O.C. government during this year's UN membership campaign. Although we don't agree with much of what Mr. Ching says, it is often useful to consider different opinions concerning issues as complex as this one.

Some things that strike us as inaccurate or misleading in this Korea Times editorial include:

1. The government of Taiwan's decision to apply under the name "Taiwan" rather than the country's official name has been a decision based on efficacy, providing an alternative to past efforts conducted under the official name which have consistently been criticized and denied. Taiwanese officials have consistently assured skeptics that the government's official name remains "Republic of China", as set forth in the government's constitution. Furthermore applying under a more commonly used name (Taiwan is surely the more commonly used name) is not without precedent: both the Swiss Confederation and the Republic of Macedonia go by commonly used yet unofficial names in the United Nations (Switzerland and Macedonia, respectively).

2. There is no reason to believe that submitting Taiwan's application to the UN earlier than usual this year provides a bigger boost to the DPP's presidential candidate than it would have if it the application campaign had begun at the usual time. As Mr. Ching states himself, the application in the past was submitted in September, and presidential elections on Taiwan do not take place until March. If this year's application is solely a political stunt (as Ching suggests), Chen could have easily waited for the usual time to roll around and still would have had plenty of time for such political posturing to work its magic.

3. Mr. Ching suggests that Beijing hasn't publicly criticized Taiwan much recently because China's government recognizes that this only shifts the PR balance in Taipei's favor (this may indeed be true). Yet he would have us believe that, during this pause in criticism, Beijing has some how arranged to have Washington to all the 'dirty work' for them. We are fairly certain this isn't the case.

4. There are indeed many things different about Taiwan's application for UN membership this year, not just the time of year and the name used. Taiwan recognizes that their past strategy, faithfully repeated annually for fifteen years, hasn't been working. This year's change in tactics is in order if Taiwan is to have any hope of joining the UN. As we've mentioned in earlier posts, the government has even endorsed a popular metal band from Taiwan in hopes of drumming up publicity for this year's campaign.

Finally, to turn Mr. Ching's argument on its head, one thing that is certainly different about the campaign this year is the man acting as UN Secretary-General. Is there any reason to believe that, if Kofi Annan were still Secretary-General, Mr. Annan wouldn't have faithfully forwarded along the application to the General Assembly (as the Secretariat has always done)? Would he have really tossed out the 2007 application because it is August and not September? Of course Mr. Ching bringing up the time of year in the first place is fallacious. Ban Ki-moon's Secretariat rejects this year's application by citing UN Resolution 2758 rather than a wall calendar. Ban Ki-moon's denial of President Chen's request is a reaction that is not just unprecedented, more importantly it is legally flawed.

To us, Secretary Ban's reinterpretation of Resolution 2758 parallels allegations in the United States of Supreme Court Justices "legislating from the bench". When it comes down to it, Secretary-General Ban has overstepped his authority under the UN Charter, and you can expect Taiwan to persist in this year's application until their case is at least considered for addition to this year's General Assembly agenda.

The 2007 UN Bid To-date

It would make sense to begin with a recap of what has happened with Taiwan’s campaign for UN membership so far this year:

On July 19 Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian submitted a letter to the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon—via two Taiwan-friendly UN members—appealing for the consideration of Taiwan for UN membership. The letter, however, never officially made it to the Secretary-General’s office, as it was turned away by the UN Office of Legal Affairs citing Resolution 2758.

We are sure that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is very busy man, but we can only hope that he has at least unofficially reviewed President Chen’s letter for his own personal edification at some point in the past two weeks. In any case, why the UN Office of Legal Affairs opted to make such a flawed argument while blocking this request—from even being considered by the Secretary-General—is beyond our understanding. Since then, many pro-Taiwan groups and even some United States officials have pointed out that the UN Secretariat is out of line on at least two levels: 1) it is the Secretary-General’s responsibility to dutifully forward requests for membership to the General Assembly for that body’s consideration, and, 2) Resolution 2758 makes absolutely no mention of the political status of the island of Taiwan, merely rejecting the notion in 1971 that Chiang Kai-shek’s government lawfully represented China within the UN.

Below are links to UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, President Chen’s letter to the Secretary-General, the UN Secretariat's statements on the subject and a few newspaper articles on the topic:

UN Resolution 2758
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/327/74/IMG/NR032774.pdf?OpenElement

President Chen of Taiwan to UN Secretary-General Ban
http://www.roc-taiwan.org/US/ct.asp?xItem=37938&ctNode=2300&mp=12

Spokesperson's Noon Briefing, 23 July 2007
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2007/db070723.doc.htm

Highlights of the Noon Briefing, 23 July 2007
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=893

"UN legal affairs office rejects 'Taiwan' bid." Taiwan Journal. 27 July 2007.
http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=24484&CtNode=122

"Allies accuse Ban of violating UN protocol." Taipei Times. 5 August 2007.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/08/05/2003372787


There have been some other interchanges since, but the rejection of President Chen’s letter so far seems to us to be the main thing.