Abstract

This article investigates the discourse surrounding Taiwan's participation in the United Nations Constitutional Conference, contextualized by a recent controversy over presidential remarks and opposition responses. It explores the historical circumstances of Taiwan's international representation, analyzes political narratives and contestations of historical fact, and considers broader implications for sovereignty, legitimacy, and collective memory.

Background or Context

The headline refers to a statement by the President of Taiwan, claiming that Taiwan did not send representatives to the UN Constitutional Conference (commonly the San Francisco Conference of 1945, which led to the UN Charter's creation). The opposition, identified as the 'Blue' camp (国民党/KMT and allies), sharply refutes this assertion, labeling it as '100% factually wrong.' This debate underscores the complex historical and political context of Taiwan’s international status, identity formation, and the politicization of historical events. Key terms include “制憲大會” (Constitutional Conference), “台灣” (Taiwan), and the contestation over representation.

Analysis and Discussion

Key Terms and Main Subjects

• 制憲大會 (Constitutional Conference): Typically refers to the San Francisco Conference (April–June 1945) where the United Nations Charter was drafted, an event that shaped the postwar international order.
• Taiwan Representation: At the time, Taiwan was under Japanese rule until August 1945; the Republic of China (ROC) government, which assumed administration of Taiwan in late 1945, represented China at the conference. Taiwanese (i.e., residents of Taiwan) did not have direct representation.

Historical and Social Context

At the San Francisco Conference, the ROC participated as one of the 'Big Four' victors of WWII, but Taiwan itself was not then considered a separate entity; it had not yet been ceded from Japanese control. After Japan’s surrender, the ROC administered Taiwan, but this status—and the island's postwar sovereignty—remained contentious.

The divergent interpretations presented by Taiwan’s President and opposition parties reflect not merely factual disagreements but underlying contests over identity and legitimacy. The Blue camp (KMT, traditionally supportive of the ROC’s claim to represent all China) maintains that since the ROC was present, 'Taiwan'—as then-administered by the ROC—was indirectly represented, challenging any historical reading that separates Taiwan from the ROC.

Theoretical Frameworks

Applying the lenses of collective memory (Halbwachs) and constructivist international relations theory (Wendt), we see that the retelling of historical events is deeply implicated in ongoing struggles over state legitimacy, identity, and geopolitics. Such disputes are not merely about the past but serve current agendas—shaping domestic cohesion, international advocacy, and legal-constitutional debates about Taiwanese statehood or autonomy.

Real-World Implications

Although the UN Charter admits 'China' as a founding member, the question of who legally succeeds the ROC at the UN remains, following the 1971 expulsion of the ROC in favor of the People's Republic of China. Today, claims about Taiwan’s absence or presence at early UN events inform policy platforms on cross-strait relations, efforts at constitutional reform, and international lobbying.

Further, the debate illustrates the phenomenon of politicized history, where historical facts are selected or discarded to serve present political identities and strategies. As highlighted by Levi (1997), contested histories can foster cohesion among some groups while exacerbating division with others.

Conclusion and Implications

The controversy over Taiwan’s representation at the Constitutional Conference typifies larger issues of collective memory, political identity, and the ongoing contest for international legitimacy. Academic attention to such disputes not only clarifies the misalignments between historical fact and political narrative but also helps us understand the broader stakes in Taiwan’s constitutional and diplomatic future. Future research may further interrogate how historical interpretation shapes international recognition, domestic cohesion, and constitutional reform movements in East Asia.

This article was inspired by the headline: '總統稱制憲大會台灣沒派代表參加 藍：百分百事實錯誤 - 聯合新聞網'.