In April 1993, ROC President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) announced that the government would actively seek membership in the United Nations. U.N. participation was already an important goal for many politicians, but after Lee’s announcement it became a major campaign embraced by the Kuomintang (KMT) as well as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and other minority parties. But each advocates vastly different strategies and aims to gain membership under very different terms and conditions.
The Republic of China was a founding member of the United Nations in 1945. But toward the late 1960s, many countries began shifting diplomatic relations to the PRC. This process culminated in the ROC’s withdrawal from the United Nations in 1971. The PRC then took over its seat.
Last year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) launched a campaign to propose a review of the status of the ROC in the United Nations. That year, seven U.N. member nations presented such a proposal to the U.N. General Committee. In 1994, a group of twelve U.N. member countries submitted a second request. Neither proposal, however, was accepted for inclusion on the agenda.
The Government Information Office (GIO) has also been involved in the campaign by developing a series of advertisements now appearing in major international magazines and newspapers including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, The Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs. The main advertisement, bearing the slogan “Without a full team, it’s uphill for the U.N.,” has been published more than forty times since May 1993. The GIO also wrote a series of five opinion articles which appeared in The New York Times. And in September, GIO Director-General Jason C. Hu (胡志強) toured Boston, New York, Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles to lecture on the ROC’s bid to enter the U.N. He also granted interviews to reporters from the Cable News Network, Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times.
The government’s campaign has raised many issues concerning the ROC’s domestic and foreign policy. Some politicians and analysts warn that, while membership in this prestigious world body would raise Taiwan’s status in the international arena, it could damage relations with Mainland China, threatening cross-strait economic ties and even endangering national security. But others believe the U.N. bid could help open communication channels between the two sides and push them closer toward unification. Supporters of the bid for Taiwan independence, on the other hand, have embraced the campaign for U.N. membership as a chance to establish Taiwan as a separate sovereign nation.
Four experts from widely differing political perspectives recently shared their views on the bid for U.N. membership with the Free China Review. Excerpts follow.
Dr. Shaw Yu-ming (邵玉銘) is a professor of international relations at National Cheng-chi University and former director-general of the GIO.
FCR: What is your assessment thus far of the government’s approach in seeking U.N. membership?
Shaw: The Republic of China on Taiwan has the twelfth largest trading economy in the world. It is too powerful to be ignored. We are pursuing the respect and acceptance due to us in the global community. The United Nations is the biggest international organization and membership in it carries symbolic political importance. Since two-thirds of U.N. members have a smaller population and many of them even occupy a smaller territory than we do, why can’t we participate? Joining this international body is the will of the 21 million people on Taiwan. As a responsible government, we must turn this goal into reality.
I think the government’s current approach in seeking U.N. membership is the best and the only one we can pursue. We must publicize the unreasonable situation Taiwan faces and voice our discontent. The reality is that the people of the ROC on Taiwan have no representation in the United Nations.
The U.N. Charter may soon be amended in order to recruit more permanent members to its Security Council. We should take advantage of this and study whether it is possible to grant dual representation for divided nations. Under the current situation, our bid for U.N. membership is next to impossible.
What title should be used in the membership bid?
We definitely cannot use Taiwan in the title, for three reasons. First, the Republic of China is our national name and the name ‘Republic of Taiwan’ has no legal basis. Second, U.N. Resolution 2758 called for the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” to be expelled [in 1971], not for the ROC to be expelled. Therefore, using the name ROC, we have the right to ask the United Nations to set up a special committee to re-examine the issue. Third, if we applied as a new member under the name Taiwan, we would have zero chance of succeeding because such applications must be approved by the Security Council, and Mainland China would veto the bid.
What the DPP is suggesting [in its bid for Taiwan independence] is irresponsible because we cannot assume that Mainland China will not respond by sending troops to Taiwan or that the international community would come to our aid if the mainland did invade. As long as Mainland China insists that the call for Taiwan independence is a domestic conflict, other countries have no right to help either side. I am against Taiwan independence.
Do you think East and West Germany and North and South Korea offer useful models of parallel membership in the United Nations?
I agree that these cases set a precedent. The only difference lies in the opposition from the Chinese Communists. The terms of unification have to be agreed upon by the people of Taiwan and peaceful unification requires that there be an atmosphere of mutual goodwill and friendship. We have announced that we do not challenge the right of the Chinese Communists to representation in the United Nations, and that we do not deny their existence. We hope the mainland authorities will think of our U.N. participation as a way to strengthen the voice of the whole Chinese people in the international arena and that establishing an equal status is the best way to secure mutual respect and cooperation.
I think we should seek membership in other international organizations as well as in the United Nations. Also, if we can’t serve as a U.N. member, we could be an observer. The people of Taiwan should not have high expectations of gaining U.N. membership—it will require much patience and is not an issue of great urgency. Also, this is only a part of our foreign policy. More important is strengthening bilateral relations with friendly countries. We must make the Chinese Communists realize the benefits of parallel membership. We can do this through dialogue between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. President Lee has said he would like to meet with Jiang Zemin (江澤民) in such international forums as APEC (Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation forum) in order to share views and establish a friendship.
The opposition party should re-examine its stance because the cry for Taiwan independence angers the Chinese Communists and misrepresents the real will of the people of Taiwan. Most people in Taiwan want to maintain the status quo. We have to let the mainland authorities know that our U.N. participation does not mean Taiwan independence. I think our government should have an informal, unofficial dialogue with the mainland authorities. This can be done through persons who are trusted and respected by both sides, such as [former Singaporean Prime Minister] Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀). Unless Mainland China shows some understanding of our position, it will be impossible for us to progress in our U.N. bid. Cross-strait dialogue is at least a start.
How can Taiwan gain more international support?
In developing foreign relations, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Therefore, we must pass a foreign aid law to repay the world community for its support. Japan and the United States spend .2 to .3 percent of their GNP on foreign aid, while the ratio in Sweden and Norway is .6 to .7 percent. But we spend only .06 to .07 percent of our GNP on foreign aid. This is insufficient to strengthen our diplomatic resources. As it is, MOFA faces a mission impossible. We must pass this law.
KMT Legislator Wei Yung (魏鏞), is convener of the Legislature’s Foreign Relations Committee and is chairman of the Vanguard Foundation and president of the Vanguard Institute for Policy Studies in Taipei.
FCR: What are the strengths and weaknesses of Taiwan’s campaign to enter the United Nations?
Wei: There are two major reasons for our current effort toward participation in the United Nations. The campaign shows the determination of our people to take part in international activities, and it shows the ROC government’s self-confidence and strength. Our efforts so far have been all right, but there is a problem in our priorities.
Our top priority should be improving bilateral relations with friendly countries. We should join such important international governmental organizations as GATT, IMF, and the World Bank, as well as regional multinational organizations in Southeast Asia. After accomplishing these two priorities, then we can make serious efforts toward entering the United Nations. There is no need to strive for an impossible goal.
We have gained something from our efforts over the past two years—the international community realizes the strong determination of Taiwan’s people in breaking through diplomatic difficulties. We have highlighted the international status of the ROC and pointed out the obstacles we face in improving cross-strait relations. But Taiwan independence activists have used this opportunity to push for separation and to change the national identity of the Republic of China. This increases tensions between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
We should take the following steps in our U.N. bid: First, we must lower its priority in our foreign policy and make it a mid-term and long-range goal. Second, we must accept the fact that it will require much time and patience. Third, we must improve cross-strait relations. In fact, only when cross-strait relations and our foreign relations have improved, can the ROC and Mainland China become parts of a multi-system nation that is acceptable to most of us.
The Foreign Ministry’s strategy [of presenting a proposal to the United Nations to review the ROC’s membership] is good, but too few nations support the proposal. Seven countries submitted last year’s proposal, and twelve countries submitted this year’s, but only one of the original seven countries continued their support by joining the group sponsoring this year’s proposal. We do not have enough support and we do not have continued support. Another problem is that many of the supporting countries have not paid U.N. membership fees because of financial difficulties, so they don’t even have the right to vote!
Do you think the dual U.N. member ships of East and West Germany and of North and South Korea are appropriate models for Taiwan and Mainland China?
I think these models are quite useful as possible arrangements. There was one German nation and two German systems before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and there is now one Korean national community with two Korean political systems. The relationship between the two Korean systems is not state-to-state, but is a special relationship between two systems within one Korean nation—one state with two parallel political systems.
Relations between East and West Germany were regulated by international agreements and the areas each controlled were similar in size, but Taiwan and the mainland were divided by civil war and the two areas are not similar in size. Still, the nature of the separation is the same, two competing systems within one nation. Relations between Taipei and Beijing are intrastate or inter-system, not inter-state. The only mutually accepted concept between the two sides is the idea of “one Chinese nation” [一個中國]. I think the term “one China” is not right—it should be “one Chinese nation.” Each side has its own separate international identity, but they are not two separate states. It is hard for us to achieve unification through international coordination because both Mainland China and the ROC are very sensitive to foreign intervention in our domestic affairs. The ROC government, for instance, has specifically stated that it does not appreciate any international pressure to compel it to negotiate with Mainland China. The Beijing authorities on the other hand vehemently oppose any foreign country’s attempt toward mediation between the two Chinese political systems.
It will be easier if we try to improve cross-strait relations by ourselves. This does not mean that Taipei and Beijing can sit down and engage in talks of a political nature now. The time is not yet ripe because Mainland China still refuses to recognize ROC jurisdiction over Taiwan. I strongly disagree that President Lee could engage in serious talks with Jiang Zemin now. They may shake hands and say “hello” to each other at international conferences, but President Lee does not have the freedom to sit down with Mr. Jiang and talk about relations between Taipei and Beijing at this time. A president is not merely a person, but also a legal entity and a public figure representing a whole country. His actions and decisions must be endorsed and approved by the Legislature.
DPP Legislator Hsiu-lien Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) was one of the first politicians to campaign for U.N. membership. In 1992, she founded the United Nations for Taiwan International Alliance to campaign for U.N. membership and has operated promotional offices in New York and Taipei for the past two years.
FCR: What is your analysis of the government’s efforts to gain U.N. membership?
Lu: The impact of our global campaign has been very good; we have had high visibility. Besides breaking out of the cage of international isolation, we have formed a consensus to make joining the U.N. a national goal.
The main weakness of our approach is that we have not clarified our national identity and have not even decided on a national name. We must tell the world that there is only one China, just as there is only one United States and one Japan. We do not challenge this. But we cannot accept that Taiwan is a part of China. Japan controlled Taiwan for fifty years, but the Japanese have never claimed Taiwan as a part of Japan. How can the Chinese Communists say Taiwan is a part of China when they did not control Taiwan even for a single day? If we accept the “one China” ideology, then cross-strait relations would be domestic affairs, which would mean that the Chinese Communists already represent us in the United Nations.
On the issue of our national title, the GIO should be praised for once because [in a recent speech in the United States] Jason Hu [GIO director-general] asked other countries to “Say Yes to Taiwan.” He didn’t say the “Republic of China” or the “Republic of China on Taiwan.” It is a belated but substantial improvement. I would add to the slogan, “Say No to China.” The international community should not bow down to Beijing anymore.
The best method of choosing a national title is through the democratic process. We can hold an election or a plebiscite to vote on the issue. After all, nothing is fixed in a democratic nation—even the Constitution can be amended. We should settle this issue by March 20, 1996 [the date set for the ROC’s first direct presidential election].
Do you agree with MOFA’s strategy of asking countries with diplomatic ties with the ROC to draw up a U.N. proposal to review the ROC’s membership?
This approach is too weak. The supporting nations are tiny countries with financial difficulties, and they have little influence in the world community. Besides, they have suggested merely setting up an ad hoc committee to study the ROC’s situation. The proposal is too circuitous—it will not make it onto the U.N. agenda. Instead, why not apply directly as a full-fledged new member? The bid will be vetoed by Mainland China in the Security Council, but at least we will have a chance to present our position.
In the coming two years, we have to discuss the issues of unification versus independence. Remember, the Shanghai Communiqué was written from the standpoint of Mainland China, without consulting the 21 million people of Taiwan. What we Taiwanese advocate is that Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China.
Do you think Taiwan needs the support of the major international powers?
Yes, but we cannot expect the United States and Japan to change their policies toward Taiwan and China. They may, however, start to play the Taiwan card to serve their own interests. If we handle the situation well, we could benefit from this. For example, the Japanese government let Vice Premier Hsu Li-teh (徐立德) attend the [October 1994] Asian Games in part as a response to the United States’ recent loosening of its foreign policy toward Taiwan, allowing ROC ministers to visit some U.S. government offices. We are also interested in the European Union, because if the European Council passes some bills favorable to Taiwan, the United States might be spurred to greater action.
It is interesting that the U.S. Congress supports our bid to be a U.N. observer. We should not actively pursue such a suggestion because, in order to get the attention of the Chinese Communists, we must aim for higher goals. If we downplay the issue and ask for observer status, they will not even pay attention to us. But we can let the international community push for this for us.
How can Taiwan gain more international support?
The Legislature should pass a foreign aid law so that it can supervise MOFA’s assistance to other nations. We should also help Third World countries by sharing our methods for surviving hard times. I think the spirit behind the Taiwan experience is the most important thing we can offer to these countries.
Dr. Chang Ling-chen (張麟徵) is a professor of political science at National Taiwan University specializing in international relations and cross-strait ties.
FCR: What is your analysis of the government’s campaign for U.N. membership?
Chang: The request for membership is justified—the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan indeed have no representative in the United Nations. But as the ROC government tries to regain its international status, the DPP is using this campaign to serve other purposes, such as changing the national name and flag.
MOFA is keeping a low profile by simply asking the United Nations to re-examine Resolution 2758. The method itself is acceptable, but the underlying policy is flawed. The reality is that we do not have enough resources to attract international attention. The government should tell its people that it is almost impossible to gain membership in the U.N. The main reasons are: we don’t have enough supporters, Mainland China rejects the idea of parallel representation, and the major international powers do not support our proposal.
We should focus on improving bilateral relations with nations that recognize us diplomatically and on discussing the issue with Beijing. It is not wise to create a conflict with Mainland China.
Should the ROC’s cross-strait policies be modified in any way?
Our mainland policy should keep pace with cross-strait exchanges. As long as Beijing does not push for unification and Taipei does not seek independence, many things can be discussed between SEF and ARATS [the Straits Exchange Foundation and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits—the unofficial agencies overseeing cross-strait affairs for Taiwan and the mainland respectively].
The DPP should not impose its party ideology on ROC citizens by claiming that its party platform is public opinion. It is not wise to provoke Mainland China over an issue in which we have zero chance of winning. The U.N. campaign raises our international name recognition, but it also hinders cross-strait relations. We lose more than we gain. We should not expect the giant [Mainland China] to be kind, but we can expect ourselves to act wisely.
To increase our national strength, we must solidify our diplomatic ties, develop diplomatic relations with other countries, and gain the support of influential states. The U.N. bid has exacerbated the difficulties we face in promoting foreign relations and cross-strait exchanges simultaneously, and it has brought new problems by strengthening the cry for Taiwan independence. The U.N. bid brings us no benefits but much potential harm.
I think the U.N. issue should be postponed and cooled down. The current campaign helps only the DPP. What we should do now is implement our mainland policy step by step.
A better way to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough would be to gain membership in international agencies such as GATT, IMF, and the World Bank. These organizations are not as politically sensitive and their regulations are not as rigid. I think our U.N. efforts can be called show diplomacy—all show and little meaning.