Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Fu Kun-chi/Facebook
THE KMT AND TPP staged a walkout of a proposed motion by the DPP calling for a clarification of UN Resolution 2758 earlier this week. This took place despite the fact that the DPP had called for bipartisan support for the measure.
UN Resolution 2758 was about the representation of the PRC at the UN, specifically “recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.” Nevertheless, though it addresses the question of whether the ROC or PRC would represent China in the UN, UN Resolution 2758 does not refer to Taiwan, nor does it define what territories or populations are included in “China.” It does not state that the PRC has territorial rights over Taiwan.
At the same time, the PRC has consistently tried to depict UN Resolution 2758 as suggesting an international consensus from the UN that Taiwan is part of China. This is similar to how China has frequently tried to conflate its “One China Principle” with “One China Policy” internationally, to suggest that there is an international consensus recognizing Taiwan as part of China when there is none, and Taiwan’s status is unsettled.
TPP caucus chair Huang Kuo-chang. Photo credit: TPP/Facebook
Last year, the US House of Representatives passed the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, affirming that UN Resolution 2758 does not refer to Taiwan, and that the US resists any attempts by China to distort framings on “One China.” The resolution also calls for supporting Taiwan’s international ties and partnerships.
In the past two months, the Australian Senate and the Dutch House of Representatives passed similar motions, using language largely drawn from the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). IPAC passed such a motion in July. IPAC is an international alliance of parliamentarians on issues pertaining to China, with 240 members from 27 legislatures as well as the European Parliament.
Still, it is probable that the KMT intends to take a hard line on UN Resolution 2758. The KMT most likely intends to frame the DPP’s actions as a form of Taiwanese independence advocacy that will inevitably hazard retaliation from China.
Indeed, the KMT has been unable to move beyond the 1992 Consensus. While successive KMT chairs including Johnny Chiang and Eric Chu proposed dropping the 1992 Consensus, given its unpopularity with the general public and its association with “One Country, Two Systems”, they were unable to accomplish this due to pushback within the KMT. KMT 2024 presidential candidate Hou You-yi was also reluctant to accept the 1992 Consensus early on in his presidential run.
But, given this continued adherence to the 1992 Consensus, the KMT framing has consistently been to frame the DPP as hazarding retaliation from China by refusing to accept the 1992 Consensus. This is perhaps the same with regard to how the KMT has framed UN Resolution 2758. Staging a walkout early on, with the next session of the Taiwanese legislature soon set to start, sets the tone for how the KMT likely intends to make UN Resolution 2758 into a battleground issue.
Still, to this extent, what perhaps surprises is that the TPP has again sided with the KMT in also walking out over the proposal. The TPP is actually a member of IPAC, presumably as a move intended to frame the TPP as more pro-sovereignty than the KMT and, in that way, distinguish the two parties.
But with the TPP having sided with the KMT on controversial moves aimed at expanding legislative powers, as well as increasingly leaning into claims that the DPP is targeting party chair Ko Wen-je by way of “Green Terror” in a manner similar to the KMT, it may be that the boundaries between the two parties are blurring. And even if the TPP on other occasions aimed to distinguish itself from the KMT by joining IPAC, if the KMT intends to make UN Resolution 2758 into a battleground issue going forward, the TPP may increasingly just align with the KMT as its junior partner.