In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 2758, restoring the lawful seat of the government
of the People’s Republic of China in the UN and reaffirming the one-China principle which has been widely upheld by the international community ever since
Recently, a “model resolution on UNGA Resolution 2758” has attempted to overturn it. This is the work of a self-styled Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), colluding with the Taiwan authorities led by Lai Ching-te and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which sees “Taiwan independence” as its primary mission. And some anti-China politicians are seeking to “pass the resolution.”
These politically motivated maneuvers, with no factual or legal basis, only expose the despicable nature of the Lai’s authorities and anti-China politicians like IPAC members. The “model resolution” is nothing but a collection of distortions of UNGA Resolution 2758, which are highlighted by three fallacies as follows.
Fallacy 1: “UNGA Resolution 2758 did not endorse the one China principle as international consensus.”
The truth is, at the very core, Resolution 2758 addresses there presentation of China in the UN under the one-China principle and is premised on Taiwan being part of China, which is affirmed by its recognition that “the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China.”
Throughout the consultations on Resolution 2758, the talk that “Taiwan’s status has yet to be determined” never had support in the General Assembly. Proposals by certain countries about “dual representation” intended to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” in the UN were all rejected and viewed as” illegal and clearly inconsistent with reality, justice and the principles of the UN Charter.” Other proposals suggesting that Taiwan’s status was “undetermined” failed as well. International practices since the adoption of Resolution 2758 also represent a universal consensus: Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territor.
Fallacy 2: “Resolution 2758 did not call for Taiwan’s exclusion from international organizations.”
As mentioned above, Taiwan’s status of being part of China and not a sovereign country is manifested in Resolution 2758. Legal opinions issued by the UN Office of Legal Affairs clearly state that since the adoption of the Resolution, “the United Nations considers ‘Taiwan’ as a province of China with no separate status.”
According to the UN Charter and relevant legal instruments of the UN, only sovereign countries and international organizations can apply to participate in the work of the UN system as members, permanent observers or observers. In the same spirit, other intergovernmental organizations and treaty bodies only grant membership to UN members, or limit participation to sovereign states as well.
Therefore, Taiwan is in no position to apply for UN membership, remain in the UN by any means, or join any international organization reserved for sovereign states; and no country or international organization should greenlight Taiwan’s participation, as a sovereign entity, in any such intergovernmental organizations or treaty bodies. Doing so constitutes a violation of Resolution 2758 and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
Fallacy 3: “Resolution 2758 has no bearing on the sovereign choices of other countries with respect to their relationships with Taiwan.”
As indicated by Resolution 2758, the Taiwan question is purely China’s internal affair. This is an issue that bears on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. For any country having diplomatic relations with China, the one-China principle is the political foundation of such a relationship, as is explicitly reflected in the joint communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations. Developing “diplomatic or official ties with Taiwan” thereby goes against its obligations under international law and its own commitment.
The UN Charter establishes the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference. In line with these fundamental rules, no country should develop “diplomatic relations” with Taiwan, including those that currently maintain “diplomatic ties” with it.
To sum up, when it comes to Taiwan’s status, the basic facts, as outlined by the one-China principle, are crystal clear. They are endorsed by UNGA Resolution 2758 and solidly grounded in a number of international legal documents, including the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The one-China principle is also recognized by most countries as well as international and regional organizations.
No political maneuvers and lies will change history and facts, the international community’s commitment to the one-China principle, or the trend toward China’s unification. IPAC’s attempt to distort UNGA Resolution 2758 is bound to fail
CGTN
