IPAC in Taiwan

Taiwan’s government recently welcomed delegates of the Inter Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) from 29 countries in Taipei, where the group made a statement challenging China’s claim to sovereignty over the island and welcomed Taiwan as its newest member.

 The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rolled out the red carpet for the IPAC delegation, while a hesitant main opposition party declined to attend, and Beijing condemned the meeting as “extreme anti-China.”

 IPAC was established in 2020, with the aim of “developing a coherent response to the rise of the People's Republic of China.” Its members are parliamentarians from 39 countries, and include Labour’s Ingrid Leary, and National’s Joseph Mooney and Tim van de Molen (though they were not present at the Taipei summit).

Given that Beijing is committed to bringing Taiwan under its control, its leaders are highly receptive to any international support. Under the Tsai Ing-wen administration, Taiwan increasingly focused on Inter-parliamentary diplomacy to achieve this aim, and which has continued under her successor, the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) President Lai Ching-te.

 “Whenever Taiwan faces threats from China, IPAC stands with us, speaks up for us, and gives us its full support,” Lai told delegates at the IPAC summit on July 30. Lai also praised the delegates’ efforts to increase Taiwan’s international participation, and for upholding “democracy over authoritarianism.”

By contrast, members of Taiwan’s main opposition party the Kuomintang (KMT), were not present at the IPAC meeting. KMT sources told local media that the party does not attend IPAC meetings as a general rule, but that its members were free to attend if they wished.

The KMT did not directly say why it chose to skip the meeting, but an editorial in one of Taiwan’s leading “pan-blue” (i.e. pro-KMT) newspapers is indicative. It described IPAC as “seriously hostile to the mainland (China)”

“It would be difficult for any politician in the KMT to risk the relationship between their party and the CCP, just to ride on the temporary enthusiasm of Western countries in their collective resistance to China,” the editorial stated.

It is unlikely any KMT politician would ever be so critical of the alliance publicly. However, the editorial’s statement that the party advocates for strong relations with both the U.S. and China, rather than the U.S. alone, is also a frequent talking point of the KMT caucus.

Predictably, China was not pleased by the meeting. A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry describing IPAC as “extreme anti-China.”

Speaking to reporters the spokesperson slammed a statement made by IPAC members challenging UN Resolution 2758, which the PRC cites, in part, as a legal basis for its “One China Principle.” The spokesperson also directly criticised the “Lai Ching-te authorities” for pursuing separatism.

UN Resolution 2758 states that the “government of the PRC are the only lawful representatives of China to the UN.” It also gave the UN Security Council's China seat to the PRC. Before it was held by the Republic of China (Taiwan’s formal name), who retreated from mainland China to Taiwan in 1949 as communist forces under Mao Zedong took control of the country.

The PRC asserts that this is legal proof that it is the only legitimate government of all of mainland China and Taiwan.

IPAC’s statement directly contradicted this interpretation, saying the resolution does not establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan, and Taiwan’s political status has not been addressed. IPAC lawmakers also committed to passing resolutions in their home parliaments to this effect. 

The IPAC challenge to Resolution 2758 correctly identifies that it does not mention the word “Taiwan.” Rather, it expels the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek,” from the UN, who was the President of the Republic of China in Taiwan when the resolution was passed.

The 1971 resolution came when the ROC and the PRC were still competing for international recognition as the only legitimate government of China (including Taiwan). While this idea has largely fallen out of the mainstream in Taipei, it remains top of mind for Beijing.

Challenges to Resolution 2758 are not unheard of, with some commentators saying the resolution is unclear on Taiwan. US lawmakers have also tabled bills in the House of Representatives echoing the IPAC statement on Resolution 2758, but bills have never made it beyond the US House of Representatives.

The US has passed laws requiring support for Taiwan’s participation in international bodies before, a point also outlined in the IPAC statement challenging the resolution.

Whether IPAC delegates can pass the motion in their home parliaments when they return home or not, Taiwan’s government will likely view the summit and statement as a foreign policy win for the international exposure alone.

It is also unclear if Taiwan’s own parliament will pass the IPAC motion on Resolution 2758, as the ruling DPP does not have a legislative majority. The minor Taiwan People’s Party joined IPAC with the DPP, and together they hold enough seats to pass the motion.

 However, while the TPP have claimed to be a non-aligned “third force,” the party’s eight legislators have typically sided with the KMT. The TPP’s cooperation with the DPP on IPAC will provide an indication of commitment to this stance going forward.

 Meanwhile, for China, Taiwan’s joining IPAC will add to its fears that its current government is taking steps towards a formally independent Taiwan, even if in reality, it only gains Taiwan international exposure without formal changes to its political status. 

Background Sources 

China foreign ministry: IPAC is ‘extreme anti-China’
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/lxjzh/202408/t20240801_11464132.html

KMT’s comments to local media regarding IPAC

https://taiwannews.com.tw/news/5910779

UDN pan blue editorial criticising IPAC as anti-China

https://udn.com/news/story/6656/8128365

-Asia Media Centre