WHOEVER wrote the article “Global goals and peace: Chip in with Taiwan,” published in the Philippine Star on Sept. 19, 2024, provokes fire and wants to play with fire.
The article addresses Taiwan’s exclusion from the United Nations system and advocates for its inclusion in international organizations and discussions. It mentions the ongoing 79th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and highlights the irony of the theme of “Leaving no one behind” while Taiwan’s 23.5 million people remain excluded from the UN system.
It purports that UNGA Resolution 2758 is misrepresented and argues that China misrepresents this resolution to claim that it establishes the “One China” principle and justifies China’s representation of Taiwan in the UN. The article refutes this interpretation and emphasizes that the resolution does not cover Taiwan’s status. The piece also links Taiwan’s situation to broader regional security concerns, including recent confrontations between the Philippine and Chinese coast guards. It suggests that China’s so-called aggressive actions in the South China Sea (SCS) could extend to Taiwan, posing risks to regional stability.
Fundamentally, the article calls for the Philippine government, its Congress, its people, and, by extension, other countries to support Taiwan’s inclusion in the UN and related meetings, mechanisms and activities, justifying that this would benefit global governance and development goals.
Misguided
In retrospect, the article is misguided and misleading. The article claims that China misrepresents UNGA Resolution 2758, which transferred the seat of China in the UN from the Republic of China (ROC: Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Though the resolution does not explicitly address the status of Taiwan, it recognizes the PRC as the legitimate representative of China in the UN. Arguing that this does not affect Taiwan’s participation may be misguided because it overlooks the broader geopolitical and diplomatic consensus developed since 1971, which generally excludes Taiwan from UN representation.
Note that UNGA Resolution 2758, adopted on Oct. 25, 1971, by the UNGA, is a landmark resolution that recognized the PRC as the legitimate representative of China to the UN and expelled the representatives of the ROC, which governed Taiwan, from the UN and its affiliated organizations. This effectively ended Taiwan’s formal representation in the UN. The resolution effectively transferred the UN seat, including the seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, from the ROC to the PRC and recognized the PRC as the sole legal government of China.
Hence, the article’s insinuation that Taiwan should be included in the UN system contradicts the current international consensus, where most countries, including the Philippines, adhere to the “One China” policy. By advocating for Taiwan’s inclusion without addressing this established international norm/policy, the article ignores the realities of international diplomacy and overlooks the international consensus.
More importantly, the suggestion that Taiwan’s participation in the UN would enhance regional stability is misguided. Such a call could escalate tensions between China and the Philippines and, by extension, other countries that may entertain such adventurism and could provoke a strong and determined response from Beijing. This potential escalation of regional tensions could destabilize the region rather than contribute to peace, security and stability.
The article oversimplifies the complexities surrounding the Taiwan issue and the implications of its call for Taiwan’s inclusion in the UN system and its affiliated organizations. By calling for Taiwan’s participation without addressing the nuanced legal and political frameworks that have governed Taiwan-China relations, it misguided and misinformed its readers into thinking that such inclusion is a straightforward or universally accepted solution.
Misleading
On another note, the article implies that Taiwan has an inherent right to UN participation based on its contributions to global stability and prosperity. While Taiwan does contribute significantly in areas like technology and health care, this argument sidesteps the political reality that the UN is composed of sovereign states, and Taiwan is not a state; it’s a renegade province of China, or the PRC, and it is not widely recognized as a state by many countries given the One China policy.
Currently, 182 of the 193 UN member states recognize the One China policy and have formal diplomatic relations with the PRC. This policy acknowledges the PRC’s stance that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China, with the PRC serving as its sole legitimate government with international consensus and bearing. These numbers reflect the global diplomatic landscape shaped by adopting UNGA Resolution 2758 in 1971 and the subsequent international recognition of the PRC’s “One China” stance. This means that most of the international community, including 182 out of 193 UN member states, do not recognize Taiwan as an independent state due to its adherence to the One China policy and instead recognize the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. This recognition implies that they consider Taiwan to be part of China.
Moreover, the article’s framing of China’s actions as unprovoked aggression, particularly in the SCS and even in the Taiwan Strait, is another misleading argument because it discounted the fact and omitted the broader geopolitical dynamics and provocations against China from other parties, including the US and its allies, which influence and provokes China’s behavior.
More significantly, the article’s call for the Philippines to support Taiwan’s inclusion in the UN is misleading because it does not reflect the Philippines’ complex diplomatic stance vis-à-vis China. It gives its readers the false impression that supporting Taiwan would be a straightforward, risk-free decision for the Philippines, which it is not. Hence, the article failed to recognize the established international norms, consensus and the potential consequences for countries like the Philippines that might heed its call.
Conclusion
The article is inflammatory and provocative in many ways, particularly in the context of the One China policy, which is one of the crucial pillars of Philippine-China official diplomatic relations. Given the sensitive nature of the Taiwan issue, advocating for Taiwan’s inclusion in the UN system could be viewed as “playing with fire” because it challenges China’s core political stance and China’s “red line,” which could provoke a strong response from Beijing.
Furthermore, the article encourages the Philippines to take a stand that may complicate its diplomatic relations with China, especially considering ongoing disputes in the SCS. Supporting Taiwan’s bid for UN participation is akin to aligning more closely with US and Western interests, potentially affecting the supposed Philippines’ strategic balance stance between the two superpowers.
Overall, the article’s call for Taiwan’s inclusion and participation in the UN system is, in many ways, a direct challenge to China, which will provoke more tensions in the already sensitive and tension-driven geopolitical context and the already challenging diplomatic and political relations between the Philippines and China. In this regard, the current Philippine government should approach the issue of Taiwan with caution and strategic foresight, considering its complex geopolitical context. It should carefully navigate the Taiwan issue by balancing its commitment to international norms, strategic interests and relationships with China, contributing to regional stability while safeguarding its national interests.
Source: The Manila Times
https://www.manilatimes.net/2024/09/21/opinion/columns/taiwan-dilemma-will-ph-play-with-fire/1972950
