20110531 Make Ma-PRC agreement public

Make Ma-PRC agreement public

By David Huang 黃偉峰

A confidential WHO memo that recently surfaced directed staffers to refer to Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China.” This is not only clearly at odds with the use of “Chinese Taipei,” the name under which Taiwan is represented in the observers’ gallery of the World Health Assembly (WHA), but also seriously demeans Taiwan, suggesting that it is a province under the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The very idea runs counter to the “one China, each side with its own interpretation” policy of the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

It is no wonder that, under the fierce admonitions of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the Ma government protested to the WHO and Beijing authorities, expressing its resolve to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty. The question is, what other option does Taiwan have to protect its sovereignty beyond simply protesting?

As far as the Ma government’s interpretation of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution is concerned, there was little to protest against in the WHO decision to refer to Taiwan as a province of China because the WHO recognizes that, under the ROC Constitution, both Taiwan and mainland China are part of the territory of the ROC. However, according to UN General Assembly Resolution No. 2758, the PRC government has replaced that of the ROC as the only legitimate representative of China to the UN.

Consequently, calling Taiwan a province of China within the international organization of the UN is the same as regarding Taiwan as a province under the jurisdiction of the PRC, while the ROC government, the democratically elected de facto government of Taiwan, is no longer regarded as legitimate in the international community.

This is another reason why the government should protest to the WHO.

It is quite apparent that the government should protest to the WHO that Taiwan is not a province under the jurisdiction of the PRC. The WHO, however, could respond that it had only used the term “Taiwan, Province of China,” not “Taiwan, Province of the PRC.”

Also, remember that as far as the UN and all its related institutions are concerned, the PRC replaced the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China in 1971, and unless the Ma government intends to wrest that status back, any protests that Taiwan is not a province of China are not only unconstitutional (in terms of the ROC Constitution), they also create the existence of “two Chinas” in the international community.

So far, the Ma government has refrained from adopting a policy to restore a UN seat for the ROC, as it is deeply fearful that to do so would wreck relations with China.

On the other hand, even though Taiwan is prioritizing reconciliation through cross-strait ties, Beijing authorities are continuing to apply pressure on Taiwan in its participation in international events.

Whereas on the surface Beijing seems to have allowed Taiwan to attend the recent five-day WHA convention as an observer, Chinese officials have also unilaterally insisted that in all documents between international organizations, Taiwan is to be referred to as a province of China under the jurisdiction of the PRC. This idea first emerged in 2005 with the passage of Beijing’s “Anti-Secession” Law, the confidential memorandum of understanding between China and the WHO being incontrovertible evidence of this.

However, China’s attempts to get other countries to accept that Taiwan is part of the PRC have not been universally successful. The “one China” policy followed by certain countries such as the US, Japan and several EU nations acknowledges Beijing’s advocacy of the view that Taiwan is part of China, but stops short of recognizing or conceding that Taiwan is a province of the PRC, and even holds that Taiwan’s international status has yet to be resolved.

All of these powers oppose the unilateral change of status quo in the Taiwan Strait and insist on the resolution of cross-strait disputes through peaceful means.

Given this, Taiwan should do more than just protest publicly about what has happened. It should solicit the support of the US, Japan and European countries, and take the matter up with the WHO, clarifying the point that the name the WHO is using for Taiwan is at odds with their own respective “one China” policies.

They should then lodge a formal demarche with the WHO stating how their own interpretations differ from that of China’s, to ensure that the latter does not succeed in unilaterally changing the definition of the cross-strait status quo.

There is a precedent to this. In 2007, the UN returned Taiwan’s instrument of accession to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, citing that for all purposes Taiwan was to be regarded as a part of the PRC. In response, the US reportedly issued a formal note to the UN secretariat saying that such a position did not co-nform to the stance on Taiwan’s status consistently held not only by the US, but also by several other major powers, requiring the secretariat to correct the error. It’s this kind of formal intervention by major powers that will have a real impact on the clarification of jurisdiction issues related to the cross-strait status quo.

In addition to public protests, Taiwan should also take this matter up with the WHO, together with the US, Japan and European states friendly with it, clarifying the point that the name for Taiwan being used by the WHO is inconsistent with these countries’ interpretation of the “one China” policy. Taiwan should move to require them to amend the error and lodge a formal notice.

Unfortunately, the Ma government’s envoy already agreed in Geneva in 2009 with the representative of the PRC government on the arrangements for Taiwan’s participation in the 2009 WHA convention as an observer. Since Ma’s officials reached this agreement in Geneva and subsequently attended the convention in line with that agreement, it would be difficult for the US or other countries to intervene in arrangements already agreed by China and Taiwan.

That is to say, if Taiwan concedes to arrangements made between China and the WHO, it is going to be very difficult for other countries to step in. The time has come for the government to make public the agreement it reached with the Chinese representative in Geneva, to regain credibility in the eyes of the world.

David Huang is an associate research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica.

TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER