In Beijing and Taipei, it's all in the name - Taiwan, China and the United Nations - Editorial

Insight on the News, Sept 26, 1994 by Dan Burton

On October 25, 1971, the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, shifting representation for the people of China from the Republic of China, or ROC, headquartered on the island of Taiwan, to the communist government of the People's Republic of China, or PRC, in Beijing. Since then, the ROC and its 21 million people have been treated as second-class citizens in most diplomatic circles.

This July, two subcommittees of the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a joint hearing to discuss a topic that is receiving an increasing amount of international attention: whether the ROC should be admitted to the United Nations. Such a hearing was long overdue. Unfortunately, one important point was never made: that the likelihood of securing this seat will remain slim until the international community embraces the name "Republic of China" (the official name) instead of "Taiwan."

In the 1991 and 1992 national elections, ROC voters have kept in power the Kuomintang, a political party which prefers the name Republic of China and seeks reunification with China. Yet on both occasions, they could have voted for the Democratic Progressive Party, which openly endorses the use of the name Taiwan and advocates independence.

According to Nat Bellochi, chairman and managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan (America's equivalent of a consulate in Taipei), "Over the last three to four years, polls have demonstrated that the position of the majority has not changed significantly on the question of independence as a feasible option." He also noted, "The pragmatism of the people on Taiwan is evident in how carefully they have approached the issues of independence and the use of the name Taiwan. There is much more vocal support for these two issues in the Taiwanese-American community than one finds in Taiwan."

While I am disappointed that few of my colleagues in Congress have recognized this reality, I am even more disturbed that some have gone so far as to introduce resolutions which identify the ROC as Taiwan instead of the Republic of China. To date, seven different resolutions have been introduced to express Congress's support for giving the ROC representation at the United Nations. Regrettably, four use the name Taiwan.

The July hearing focused considerable attention on two resolutions: House Concurrent Resolution 148, introduced by Rep. Gerald Solomon, a Republican from New York; and House Concurrent Resolution 166, introduced by Rep. Robert Torricelli, a Democrat from New Jersey. The Solomon resolution expresses the sense of Congress that "the Republic of China on Taiwan deserves full participation, including a seat in the United Nations." The Torricelli resolution says only that "the 21,000,000 people on Taiwan should be represented in the United Nations."

If the Congress wants to advance the ROC's admission to the United Nations, it should reject resolutions such as Torricelli's. While it is well-intentioned, it sends all the wrong signals to Beijing. By not asking for a U.N. seat, it implies that Congress supports other types of representation, such as U.N. observer status. The Palestine Liberation Organization has been represented at the U.N. for years, but it has never had a vote. The ROC does not deserve to be thrown in the same category.

Furthermore, by using the name Taiwan, the Torricelli resolution creates the impression that Congress supports the independence movement and its supporters in the United States. Beijing has made clear that it will respond to any declaration of independence with military force. With 3 million men in its armed forces and a nuclear stockpile, this threat should be taken seriously.

While Beijing also has objected to the use of the name Republic of China, it is clearly more acceptable to them than Taiwan. First, it does not challenge Beijing's assertion that the ROC is part of China. The ROC also supports unification. Second, ROC is no longer the nameplate of a government which questions Beijing's authority to rule the mainland. In 1991, the ROC abandoned its claim to be the sole legitimate authority on the mainland.

With the recent thaw in ROC-PRC relations, it is not unreasonable to think that Beijing may someday soften its opposition to the ROC. Even if it does not, we should begin our U.N. efforts using the ROC name because it has the support of the people. Lastly, its usage may compel Beijing to give the ROC a seat under a compromise name. Currently, the ROC uses the name "Chinese-Taipei" in the Olympics, "Taipei, China," in the Asian Development Bank and "Chinese Taipei" in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Each name suggests that the ROC on Taiwan is still part of China. The name Taiwan does not.

According to Section 4(2) of the United Nations' charter, new members to the United Nations are elected "by decision of the U.N. General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. If the ROC were to seek admission as a new member, using the name "ROC" or "Taiwan," it would most certainly be vetoed by the communist regime in Beijing.