#39: Taiwan & UN < HRWF, A Neocon? Iraq < US:Iran. 07.8.7=3pm - 10.9=2 5pm

==============================================
http://www.hrwf.net/blog/
Human Rights Without Frontiers International (Brussels):
Support Taiwan's UN Membership.
===============================================

An American Neocon? on Taiwan's UN Memebership:
http://tinyurl.com/3xwag9

'A Club Taiwan Can't Join', by Gary J. Schmitt; Posted: Monday, August 6, 2007; From "The Weekly Standard", published on August 13, 2007:

"" Membership in the United Nations is supposed to be "open to all . . . peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained" in the U.N. Charter, as the selfsame charter puts it. In a rational world, a country with the world's 18th largest economy, which is formally and diplomatically recognized by other member states and is a practicing liberal democracy, would be a slam dunk for membership. But of course the U.N.'s history is replete with resolutions and decisions that are at odds with its own charter and lofty goals. So, to no one's surprise, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has been denied membership in that august body for the 15th year in a row.

But this year was different. In mid-July, President Chen Shui-bian submitted the application letter under the name "Taiwan" instead of "Republic of China." The ostensible reason for doing so was that, having failed repeatedly in the past with the moniker ROC, it was thought best to try something new, using the name now commonly employed by both the people of Taiwan and much of the globe when talking about the self-governing island. The real reason for the switch of course was President Chen's desire to reaffirm to his constituents at home and to the wider world his view that Taiwan is in fact an independent, sovereign entity that is distinct from mainland China.

Within days, President Chen had his answer. Not only did the U.N. Secretariat reject the application, but new secretary-general Ban Ki-moon defended the decision by citing U.N. Resolution 2758, saying that it stipulated that "the government of China is the sole and legitimate government and the position of the United Nations is that Taiwan is part of China." But that 1971 resolution, which was intended to expel the Republic of China from the U.N., give its permanent seat on the Security Council to the People's Republic of China, and to "recognize" the Communist regime in Beijing "as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations," said nothing at all about Taiwan being part of China.

Giving the people of Taiwan their due seems to be the last thing on anyone's mind these days. Rather, placating Beijing by letting it dictate what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to Taiwan's international personality is the order of the day.

Putting aside the fact that passage of the resolution itself--by a simple majority vote of the General Assembly--was a violation of the U.N.'s own rules for addressing such questions, U.N. Resolution 2758 did not deal with the issue of Taiwan. Indeed, as a matter of history and international law, the San Francisco Peace Treaty--the 1951 accord signed by 49 states formally ending the war with Japan--explicitly left open "the future status of Taiwan." And to this day it has not been formally settled. As recently as this summer, the State Department allowed that, as far as the U.S. government was concerned, the PRC is "the sole legal government of China, [but] we have not formally recognized Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan." Unless Secretary-General Ban has now taken on a second job as a foreign policy spokesman for China, he has exceeded his brief in conflating the question of who represents China at the U.N. with the status of Taiwan. ""
... ...
"" Perhaps a good, first step in breaking this cycle would be for the folks at Foggy Bottom to make clear to the new secretary-general that a "clarification" by him is in order.

Gary J. Schmitt is a resident scholar and director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at AEI. ""

© 2005 American Enterprise Institute | All Rights Reserved

===============
US:Iran > Iraq:
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report:

"" The Major Diplomatic and Strategic Evolution in Iraq
By George Friedman

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker met Aug. 6 with Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi and Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. Separately, a committee of Iranian, Iraqi and U.S. officials held its first meeting on Iraqi security, following up on an agreement reached at a July ambassadorial-level meeting.

The U.S. team was headed by Marcie Ries, counselor for political and military affairs at the embassy in Baghdad. Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who handles Iraq for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, led the Iranian team. A U.S. Embassy spokesman described the talks as "frank and serious," saying they "focused, as agreed, on security problems in Iraq." Generally, "frank and serious" means nasty, though they probably did get down to the heart of the matter. The participants agreed to hold a second meeting, which means this one didn't blow up.

Longtime Stratfor readers will recall that we have been tracing these Iranian-American talks from the back-channel negotiations to the high-level publicly announced talks, and now to this working group on security. A multilateral regional meeting on Iraq's future was held March 10 in Baghdad, followed by a regional meeting May 4 in Egypt. Then there were ambassadorial-level meetings in Baghdad on May 28 and July 24. Now, not quite two weeks later, the three sides have met again. ""
... ...
Contact Us
Analysis Comments - analysis@stratfor.com
Customer Service, Access, Account Issues - service@stratfor.com

Was this forwarded to you? Sign up to start receiving your own copy – it’s always thought-provoking, insightful and free.

Go to https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to register
... ...
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.
... ...?