UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 has nothing to do with Taiwan, and it is downright despicable of China to attempt to obscure the issue by linking the resolution to its false claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
Adopted by the UN General Assembly on Oct. 25, 1971, Resolution 2758 recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal government of China, replacing the Republic of China (ROC).
The exact wording is: “[The UN decides] to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek [蔣介石] from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and in all the organizations related to it.”
By unseating “the second China,” then represented by Chiang’s regime, what the resolution accomplished was resolving the question of the right of who represented China. Nowhere in the resolution is Taiwan mentioned; it did not address the issue of Taiwan’s representation, let alone explicitly or implicitly recognize the PRC’s territorial claim to Taiwan.
Thus the WHO’s wrongful interpretation of the resolution in favor of China over Taiwan, as evidenced by its mention of the resolution and the “one China” principle in its invitation to Taiwan to attend the World Health Assembly (WHA) this month, is ultimately shameful.
The invitation to “Dr Chiang” — Minister of Health and Welfare Chiang Been-huang (蔣丙煌) — from WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍), includes the phrase “recalling the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI) and WHA Resolution 25.1 [which expelled the ROC from the WHO in 1972] and in line with the ‘one China’ principle as reflected therein.”
The incident comes across as yet another brazenly sneaky attempt by Beijing to distort the resolution as it tries to justify its territorial claims over Taiwan.
This is not the first time China, via the hands of others, has employed such a dirty trick in its attempts to tie Taiwan’s hands and deny Taiwan an international presence.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in July 2007 rejected Taiwan’s UN membership application by repeating Beijing’s claim that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory.” He cited UN Resolution 2758 and added: “In accordance with that resolution, the United Nations considers Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.”
The US objected to Ban’s distorted reasoning and Washington “urged the UN Secretariat to review its policy on the status of Taiwan and to avoid taking sides in a sensitive matter on which UN members have agreed to disagree for over 35 years.”
“If the UN Secretariat insists on describing Taiwan as a part of the PRC, or on using nomenclature for Taiwan that implies such status, the United States will be obliged to disassociate itself on a national basis from such a position. It is crystal clear of US policy on Taiwan,” it added.
In 2011, then-US secretary of health and human services Kathleen Sebelius spoke up for Taiwan, saying that no UN agency had the right to unilaterally determine Taiwan’s status.
Indeed, no single international organization, the UN included, can unilaterally decide Taiwan’s standing, nor should China be given the ultimate say on the international stage to unilaterally decide Taiwan’s participation in global organizations.
However, it can be expected that China will continue trying to trick the international community into believing that Resolution 2758 binds Taiwan to it.
The incoming Democratic Progressive Party administration must heed the impact of Beijing’s distorted reasoning and take care not to give the international community any idea that it is acceptable to have Resolution 2758 made applicable to contemporary Taiwan.
I think it is fair to say there is a widespread sigh of relief among many Americans — particularly those of us focused on foreign policy — that the chaotic and unpredictable Trump years will soon be over. Mr. Trump brought little real knowledge or experience to his foreign policy, and it showed. He also — in my humble opinion — did not err on the side of expertise in his choice of top foreign policy officials. Nor was he particularly open to listening to advice. All in all a poor set of traits for overseeing the complex foreign policy
After more than eight years of talks, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed on Nov. 15, combining the individual free-trade agreements signed between ASEAN member states on the one hand, and China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand on the other. Under the leadership of ASEAN and China, most observers did not expect the RCEP to provide a high degree of openness, and the announced agreement lives up to these expectations, containing few surprises. All products covered by the RCEP tariff reductions are agricultural and industrial products, but reductions of agricultural product tariffs are very limited, for example covering
While the nation grapples with its falling birthrate, it is also imperative to address how parents are raising their children. The phenomenon of “dinosaur parents” — who lash out at teachers, store staff or people on the street when confronted about their children misbehaving — has been an issue for a while, but there seems to be an uncomfortably high number of incidents making the news lately. On Saturday, a preschool teacher on an online forum wrote about a mother who often visited the school and screamed at the staff for various reasons — including her child being late to school
On Nov. 14, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) commented on the nation’s low birthrate, claiming that young people would surely have children if only they married first, and that the low marriage rate among young people is the cause of the rapid aging of Taiwan’s society. The Taipei City Government therefore proposed to offer subsidies to couples willing to marry. Ko’s comment stirred up a great deal of protest. As a sociology student, I would like to remind the mayor that his remarks not only decontextualized the population aging issue, but also oversimplified the low birthrate problem. First, a look at systemic