United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 and the One-China Principle

– Comment on the Bonnie Glaser’s Report on Taiwan

 

Rao Geping

Peking University Law School

 

Abstract: Resolution 2758 was a historic decision of the United Nations General Assembly to restore the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations and expel the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupied in the United Nations. The one-China principle, stressing that the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China, is a fundamental principle of China in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The resolution and the one-China principle are closely linked and mutually reinforcing, based on the same historical facts and principle of international law. U.S. scholar Bonnie Glaser’s report on Taiwan published by a U.S. think tank tries to sever the ties between them by discrediting the one-China principle and distorting Resolution 2758, clamoring for Taiwan’s “meaningful participation at the United Nations” so as to echo the U.S. policy of “using Taiwan to contain China”. The report is untenable either from the standpoint of law or facts.

 

Keywords: Resolution 2758, one-China principle, Taiwan’s status, “meaningful participation at the United Nations”

 

In 1971, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 (hereafter referred to as “Resolution 2758”) on the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the United Nations.[1] Fifty years later, two U.S. researchers on China affairs, Bonnie S. Glaser and Jessica Drun, released a research report (hereafter referred to as “Glaser’s Report”)[2]，accusing China of “distorting Resolution 2758, falsely claiming the one-China principle as a universally accepted norm, and limiting Taiwan’s access to the UN”. According to the report, Resolution 2758 does not include the words “Republic of China” (ROC) or “Taiwan”, nor does it state that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. Accordingly, it does not present an institutional position on the status of Taiwan. It suggests that the United States “launch a major diplomatic effort” to allow for and support “Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the United Nations”. The report tries to sever the ties between Resolution 2758 and the one-China principle by denying the fact that Taiwan is a part of China, to echo the U.S. policy of “using Taiwan to contain China”. It is a flagrant violation of international law and distortion of the solemn resolution of the UN General Assembly. The report, giving a new face to a cliché, has produced considerable adverse effect. Therefore, it is imperative to review Resolution 2758 as well as its political significance and legal effect and clarify its relationship with the one-China principle and Taiwan’s status.

 

I. Resolution 2758: Political Significance and Legal Effect

 

On October 25, 1971, a breaking news came from the UN General Assembly Hall on the banks of New York City’s East River: The General Assembly decided “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it”. This is the text of UN Resolution 2758, a resolution making history by restoring the international community’s faith in fairness and justice and opening the gate to the world for China. It has stood firmly like a monument in the history of the United Nations for more than 50 years.

 

1. Resolution 2758 embodies and recognizes the one-China principle

 

Resolution 2758, though quite concise, is a momentous decision with profound political significance.

 

First, the resolution reaffirms respect for and observance of the principles in the Charter of the United Nations, which are its legal basis. In specific, the principles refer to those basic principles of international law as stipulated in Article 2 of Chapter I[3], with the first being that “the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”, which stresses the respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity. These basic principles reflect the basis and purpose of Resolution 2758.

 

Second, the resolution considers that the restoration of the lawful rights of the PRC is essential both for upholding the UN Charter and promoting the UN cause, which not only demonstrates the high expectation on and importance attached to the PRC by the United Nations, but also greatly elevates the political and moral position of the resolution.

 

Third, the resolution gives the final verdict on China’s right of representation in the United Nations by recognizing that the representatives of the PRC Government are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the PRC is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is not only the recognition of the legitimacy and legality of the PRC Government by the United Nations, but also the recognition of it as the sole representative of China in the United Nations.

 

Last but not the least, the resolution announces two statutory decisions: First, restore all its rights to the PRC and recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations; second, expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy in the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it. It has not only explicitly expressed the recognition and acceptance of the representatives of the PRC, but also rejected with disdain the Chiang Kai-shek regime: There is no room for Taiwan, which is not a country itself, in the United Nations. Thereby, the one-China principle clearly reveals itself as the core idea of Resolution 2758.

 

The four paragraphs of Resolution 2758 are an integral whole, with the one-China principle at the core: the United Nations only recognizes one China, and Taiwan is a part of China. The sole legitimate representative of China in the United Nations is the government of the PRC, rather than the Chiang Kai-shek regime in Taiwan. The one-China principle is clearly reflected in the resolution. 

 

Resolution 2758 solves the question of who should represent China in the United Nations, and recognizes the success of China’s revolution and the failure of the two decades’ containment of China by the U.S. It is a result of the confrontation between the two camps and powers during the Cold War, and a triumph of justice. The resolution is of revolutionary significance as it has corrected a historical mistake of the United Nations by restoring justice to China, ending the anomaly that the government of a major country accounting for 22 percent of the world’s population had been excluded from the United Nations for a long time, and making the United Nations more universal and authoritative. The greatest contribution of the resolution is the reflection and recognition of the one-China principle, which has exerted a far-reaching political impact, and serves as a guideline for the international community in handling relations with China and addressing the Taiwan question, thus helping maintain the international order based on the international law.

 

2. Based on the international law and practices, Resolution 2758 has the force of law within the UN system.    

 

According to the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly is mainly a deliberative and advisory body. The resolutions of the General Assembly are generally recommendations and not binding, except for those involving the internal affairs of the United Nations as stipulated in the Charter.[4] Yet in practice, many UN General Assembly resolutions, whether involving the internal affairs of the United Nations or not, are binding or have certain force of law, including giving rise to legal consequences, altering legal circumstances, and affecting the enactment and development of law.[5] Resolution 2758 belongs to this type, which has the force of law both internally and externally.

 

Whether and what kind of legal effect a resolution of the UN General Assembly can produce largely depends on the composition of voters and the results of the vote. According to Article 18 of the UN Charter, “Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting.”[6] The resolutions adopted in this way can largely reflect the overall will of the United Nations, demonstrate the opinio juris of the vast majority of member states and thus have legal effect within the entire UN system.

 

China’s representation in the United Nations was improperly listed as an “important question”,[7] and “a special procedure is required to vote on it”. The result makes it go beyond mere recommendation and become a resolution that can produce legal effects and even have binding force. The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 with an overwhelming majority of votes (76 voted for, 35 voted against and 17 abstained), fully demonstrating its legitimacy and validity and reflecting the overall will of the United Nations. In particular, the last paragraph is expressed with an imperative tone, using the word “decide” instead of “appeal” or “suggest”. It shows that the General Assembly intends to make the resolution enforceable within the UN system, so that all organs confirm the recognition of the PRC Government and restore its legal seat in the United Nations. The voting result endows the resolution with opinio juris, which constitutes an important basis for it to be legally binding. Its legal effect is further verified by subsequent practice. 

 

Internally, Resolution 2758 decides to expel the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the seats which they unlawfully occupied in the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it and restore them to the representatives of the PRC, which is a mandatory requirement for and an obligation of all organs of the United Nations. Following the requirements of the resolution, all UN organizations made adjustments accordingly within a short span of time, handled affairs related to China based on the one-China principle as reflected in Resolution 2758, and guaranteed that the PRC government regained its lawful seat and exercised its rights in the United Nations.

 

In terms of spillover effect, UN agencies also made corresponding decisions on repelling the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek and restoring the lawful seat of the PRC Government based on the one-China principle as reflected in Resolution 2758.[8] Obviously, the subsequent practice of the international organizations provided convincing evidence for the legal effect of Resolution 2758, as it had been considered by those organizations as the legal basis for taking relevant actions. 

 

In terms of the practice of the UN member states, although they independently handle their relations with the PRC, after Resolution 2758 came out, the vast majority of them adopted a position consistent with it by recognizing the one-China principle, severing official ties with Taiwan and acknowledging the PRC Government as the sole legitimate government representing China and establishing diplomatic relations with it. A general practice and acceptance of that practice as law (opinio juris) are the two constituent elements of customary international law: Together they are the essential conditions for a rule of customary international law.[9] Though their diplomatic practice cannot simply be regarded as evidence of the external legal validity of the resolution, it is already considered by the academia as meeting the criteria for the formation of an international customary law, and showing the tendency toward developing into a customary international law.

 

In short, as a resolution passed by an overwhelming majority of the most representative and authoritative body of the United Nations, Resolution 2758 is a political document encapsulating the one-China principle whose legal authority leaves no room for doubt and has been recognized worldwide.   

 

II. The Relationship Between Resolution 2758 and the One-China Principle

 

1. The legality and legitimacy of the one-China principle

 

The one-China principle emerged as a basic principle of the PRC in handling the Taiwan question in the early 1950s, in a bid to safeguard China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the principle has always been upheld till now.[10] For a long time, it had been expressed in three parts: There is but one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, and the Government of the PRC is the sole legal government representing the whole of China. In recent years, the statement has been fine-tuned: “There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division.”[11] Yet the essence of the principle has remained the same, with the core being the status of Taiwan. It stresses that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. Taiwan cannot be separated from China and China will never abandon its sovereignty over Taiwan. If China’s sovereignty over Taiwan is denied, the one-China principle would be hollowed out.    

 

The legality and legitimacy of the one-China principle can stand the test of time as it is well-founded on facts and principles of international law.

 

From the perspective of history and international law, Taiwan is neither a res nullius nor a place of foreign occupation. It has never been a sovereign state, but has been an inherent part of China’s territory[12]. The written history of China’s administration of Taiwan and Penghu Islands can be traced back at least to the Song and Yuan dynasties (960-1368)[13]. Although there were invasions or short-term partial occupation of Taiwan by Spain and the Dutch during the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368-1911), neither of them constituted the effective rule under European international law in the colonial era. After Zheng Chenggong (better known as Koxinga in the West) expelled the Dutch invaders in 1662, Taiwan continued to be under the effective jurisdiction of China. When the Qing court was defeated in 1895, Taiwan, as part of China’s territory, was ceded to Japan upon the signing of the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki. The treaty was abolished and no longer legally binding when the Chinese Government declared war against Japan in December 1941 after the outbreak of the Pacific War. In 1943, China, the U.S. and the United Kingdom issued the Cairo Declaration, which has the legal effect of an international law, stating that it was the purpose of the three allies that all the territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Northeast China, Taiwan, and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China. In July 1945, China, the U.S., and the United Kingdom signed the Potsdam Proclamation, subsequently joined by the Soviet Union. It reiterated that “the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out”[14]. The General Order No. 1 of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers authorized the surrender of Japanese forces and the return of Taiwan to the ROC.[15] On October 25, 1945, the government of the ROC accepted Japan’s surrender and announced that it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan.[16] From that point forward, China had recovered Taiwan as part of its territory de jure and de facto.                

 

In October 1949, the government of the PRC was established. The change of the country’s name neither involved the emergence of a new country, nor did it affect China’s status as a subject under international law. Without any transfer of territory or change of sovereignty over Taiwan, it is still an inalienable part of China’s territory.

 

According to the “principle of effectiveness”[17] generally followed in modern international practice, the Government of the PRC has exercised effective jurisdiction over all territories under its control in China’s mainland, and gained the recognition and support of the people to the greatest extent, thus making it the only legal representative of China in the international community qualified and capable to represent China internationally and exercise its rights and fulfill its obligations. The recognition of the Government of the PRC did not involve the recognition of a new country. 

 

Although Chiang Kai-shek’s remnants who were defeated and retreated to Taiwan continued to use the name of “ROC”, they had essentially become a local rebel force and lost their qualification to represent China. The so-called “ROC” was no longer the name of China as a subject under international law, but merely a term of the past. Even so, it is worth noting that the Chiang Kai-shek regime had always observed the one-China principle and opposed the separation of Taiwan from China and the absurdity of “two Chinas”. What they vied with the mainland was only the right to represent China. The successive Taiwan authorities after Chiang Kai-shek continued to call themselves “the ROC”, yet they have remained faithful to the “Constitution of the Republic of China” which acknowledges that both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. It shows that no matter how the civil war had changed China’s political landscape, the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Straits uphold that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

 

From a different perspective, the reason why the United Nations tolerated the representation of China by the Chiang Kai-shek regime for over 20 years was that it claimed itself, and was deemed by some others, as the representative of China and believed that Taiwan belongs to China; the seat it occupied in the United Nations was not other’s, but China’s. This fact testifies from another perspective that the United Nations only recognizes one China, with Taiwan being treated as part of China.   

 

Until the Korean War, the U.S. Government had always affirmed its commitment to the one-China policy and the fact that Taiwan is a part of China. On January 5, 1950, President Harry Truman quoted the Cairo Declaration by saying that the territories that Japan had stolen from China, such as Taiwan, should be restored to China, and emphasized that fact that for the past four years the U.S. and other allied countries had accepted the return of Taiwan and the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan by the ROC[18]. His statement was undoubtedly an affirmation by the U.S. side that Taiwan is a part of Chinese territory. 

 

However, the U.S. made a U turn on its Taiwan policy after the outbreak of the Korean War. It snatched the chance to dispatch troops to the Taiwan Straits and supported the defeated Chiang Kai-shek regime to confront the mainland. Meanwhile, it attempted to use Taiwan to contain China, and as a pawn for the U.S. during the Cold War. It fabricated that the status of Taiwan had yet to be determined. In a statement made on June 27, 1950, Truman claimed that the determination of the future status of Taiwan must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or to be decided by the United Nations[19]. This statement, which is a clear violation of the principle of equitable estoppel in international law[20], is generally regarded as the origin of the absurd argument that the status of Taiwan had yet to be determined. In the next two decades, the U.S. used this pretext to support Chiang Kai-shek regime’s unlawful occupation of China’s seat in the United Nations and hinder the PRC’s restoration of its rightful seat. On the other hand, the U.S. obstructed the national reunification of China by supporting the separatist forces and clamoring for the “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan”.                

 

In response to the abrupt change of Taiwan policy and the hostile containment by the U.S., the newly founded PRC put forward the one-China principle[21] correspondingly, which is an act of justice based on facts and international law to safeguard China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As a basic principle of China’s diplomatic policy, its legitimacy and legality has been widely recognized by the international community. 

 

2. Resolution 2758 and the one-China principle share the same factual and legal basis, and the two are mutually reinforcing.

 

Initially, Resolution 2758 and the one-China principle emerged as independent historical outcomes, which were applied on different international occasions. Yet the two share the same factual and legal basis and are innately consistent with each other to a great extent, thus showing a strong homogeneity and naturally becoming closely interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Any attempt to sever the ties between them is made with ulterior motives.       

 

Glaser’s Report discredits the one-China principle by accusing China of distorting Resolution 2758 and denies the fact that it is a universally recognized norm of international relations, with the malicious intent to defame the resolution and sever its ties with the one-China principle. The ultimate motive is to deny its legitimacy and legality. Therefore, it is imperative to debunk the allegation and put into perspective the relations between the one-China principle and Resolution 2758.      

 

First, the United Nations discussed Resolution 2758 based on the fact of one China. The one-China principle has actually constituted the premise and political basis for the resolution.

 

It is an undeniable fact that the PRC, as a subject under international law, has become the new representative of China since 1949. Its seat in the United Nations was unlawfully occupied by the Chiang Kai-shek regime from 1949 to 1971 due to the manipulation of the United States. This problem was not properly tackled until 1971 when the 26th session of the UN General Assembly was convened, at which the resolution to restore the lawful rights of the PRC, sponsored by 23 nations, was adopted overwhelmingly. On the other hand, the resolution on “dual representation” clamored by the U.S. and Japan ended up with an embarrassing veto at the session. It proved that most member states of the United Nations recognized and accepted the existence of one China, instead of the so-called “two Chinas”, and only agreed to make a ruling on the legitimacy of the two opposing governments within the framework of one China. Here, one China was not only the factual premise for the UN General Assembly to consider the resolution, but also used by the United Nations to justify the legitimacy of the PRC. Obviously, Resolution 2758 recognizes the one-China principle and facilitates the establishment of it in the international community.                 

 

Second, Resolution 2758 is highly consistent with the one-China principle as they share the same factual and legal basis, with popular support in the international community.

 

They converge with each other not as a result of the so-called China’s “misinterpretation” or “lobbying” of other countries, but because of their inherent connection.   

 

The legality and legitimacy of the one-China principle are underpinned by facts and principles of international law, which are understood, respected and accepted by the international community, especially by most member states of the United Nations, constituting the factual and legal basis for them to propose and vote in favor of Resolution 2758. Thus, the political principles and the relationship of rights and obligations contained in the one-China principle have gone beyond the scope of China’s foreign policy and become international consensus. The fact that this principle is understood and endorsed by the majority of the UN member states reflects a common value and manifests itself as a logical and natural fit.

 

Concerning the longstanding debate over China’s representation in the United Nations, the majority of UN member states have reached a consensus on the one-China principle, recognized the factual and legal basis of it and stand with China based on their free will. This is because the principle meets the trend of the times and the desire of the international community. It is safe to say that the one-China principle upheld by the PRC and its factual as well as legal basis paved the way for Resolution 2758.    

 

Third, Resolution 2758 facilitated the recognition of the one-China principle by the international community.    

 

Resolution 2758 emerged due to favorable international and domestic environment as well as popular support. The one-China principle embodied by it has grown into a political principle within the UN system; and with the support of the United Nations, it is widely recognized and observed by the international community, gradually developing into a generally accepted norm in relations with China. Thus, no wonder it is regarded as a basic norm of international relations within a certain scope. However, it is entirely the result of the natural development of international relations, instead of the so-called “misinterpretation and misguidance of public opinion” by China as alleged by Glaser’s Report.

 

The recognition of the inherent consistency between Resolution 2758 and the one-China principle are reflected not only in the collective action of the majority of UN member states in voting for the resolution, but in their individual action of establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC. It is worth noting that the number of countries negotiating and establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC peaked after the adoption of Resolution 2758, which was by no means a coincidence. At present, the number of countries that have established diplomatic relations with China has reached 182[22], covering more than 93% of the member states of the United Nations, a testimony to the fact that the one-China principle has gone beyond the scope of China’s foreign policy and developed into a principle universally accepted by the international community in their exchanges with China. These countries all respectively expressed their agreement with the one-China principle in the joint communiqués on the establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC. The one-China principle is the rational core of Resolution 2758, while Resolution 2758 is a catalyst pushing forward the acceptance of the one-China principle in the international community. Therefore, it would be futile for anyone attempting to sever the ties between them. 

 

In a nutshell, Resolution 2758 and the one-China principle are independent in form, yet in essence they share the same factual and legal basis, reflecting the common values of the international community and the shared rational consciousness of humanity. The two are inseparable and mutually reinforcing. Any attempt to sever the ties between them will undermine the foundation of either. To safeguard the authorities of Resolution 2758 also means to respect the one-China principle. Any attempt to distort the resolution or make irresponsible remarks about China’s stance on the issue is seen not only as a provocation or resistance to the will of the United Nations, but also as a contempt and insult to the political judgment of most UN member states.

 

III. Resolution 2758 and the Question of Taiwan’s Status

 

Glaser’s Report denies the innate connection between Resolution 2758 and the Taiwan question, asserts that the resolution has no binding force over the Taiwan question, and claims that the status of Taiwan has yet to be determined. In this way, it aims to distort the one-China principle, deny the fact that Taiwan is part of China and advise the U.S. Government to support Taiwan’s “meaningful participation at the United Nations”. Then, could this scheme come true? Is the two really independent of each other?   

 

1. Resolution 2758 is closely bound up with the question of Taiwan’s status

 

Resolution 2758 is closely bound up with the Taiwan question, instead of being independent of it.

First, one immediate goal and result of Resolution 2758 were to address the question of Taiwan’s status in the United Nations. Glaser’s Report denies the connection between the resolution and Taiwan in defiance of facts.

 

The restoration of the lawful rights of the PRC and the expelling of the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the United Nations are two sides of the same coin. Though Resolution 2758 did not mention Taiwan directly, it explicitly expressed that the Chiang Kai-shek regime unlawfully occupying Taiwan was not the lawful representative of China to the United Nations, affirming the fact that Taiwan belongs to China, a testimony to the close ties between Resolution 2758 and the Taiwan question.

 

To settle once and for all the issue of China’s representation in the United Nations, the first step needed was to tell truth from falsehood, that is, to remove the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek, the fake representatives of China, from the United Nations. Though Resolution 2758 tactically avoided mentioning Taiwan, it explicitly mentioned Chiang Kai-shek by name, which was the political symbol of a rebelling regime unlawfully occupying Taiwan under the name of the “ROC”. Thus by mentioning Chiang Kai-shek, the resolution was actually referring to the Taiwan authorities, with the aim to settle the issue of the relations between the United Nations and Taiwan. It is clear to all UN member states. How could it be possible that the resolution is irrelevant to Taiwan as Glaser’s Report declares? Resolution 2758 expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek who was head of the former government of the ROC which was no longer qualified to represent China, instead of the representatives of Taiwan Moreover, Chiang Kai-shek had always asserted that the “ROC” was the legitimate government of China and never considered it to merely represent Taiwan. Therefore, Taiwan has never been represented as a “country” by anyone in the United Nations. It has always been a part of China and is covered by China in terms of international law. The allegation that Taiwan should join the United Nations or be represented by any country other than China is groundless.    

 

Accordingly, Resolution 2758 decides to “expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it”. It is the political verdict of the United Nations that the Taiwan authorities cannot represent China and Taiwan is an inherent part of China’s territory rather than an independent country, hence not qualified to independently participate in the United Nations. Therefore, the United Nations decided to expel them completely, cutting off the formal ties between it and Taiwan. What the United Nations expelled was not a country or a subject under international law, but a local rebelling regime arrogated to itself the right to represent China. To a large extent, the reason why the United Nations tolerated the two decades’ arrogation is that the Taiwan authorities had always claimed to “represent” China. If Taiwan is not part of China’s territory, how could the United Nations accept it as China’s representative, allow it to act in China’s name, and expel it to make way for China’s legitimate representative? This logical reasoning has also testified to the China’s sovereignty over Taiwan from a different perspective.

 

The stern wording of Resolution 2758 leaves no room for ambiguity. It shows that the United Nations’ attitude toward Taiwan’s status is clear-cut: Since the Chiang Kai-shek regime cannot represent China and Taiwan is a part of China, there is no alternative other than expelling Taiwan from the United Nations. In the face of such a resolute decision, how can it be said that the resolution does not involve the Taiwan question?  

 

Second, the political wisdom of Resolution 2758 lies in that it has successfully solved the question of whether Taiwan should stay in the United Nations without mentioning it directly.   

 

Admittedly, Resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan by name, nor does it say in a direct way that Taiwan is part of China, yet such a seeming deficiency is but a result of political tactics. The main purpose of the sponsors of the resolution was to concentrate their efforts on pushing the General Assembly to agree to expel Chiang Kai-shek’s representatives and restore the lawful seat of the PRC in the United Nations. If the request for resolving Taiwan’s status is put forward in this same proposal, it may distract or weaken the main appeal of it, incurring more complicated resistance and procedures, thus reducing the proposal’s chance of success. What’s more, Taiwan’s status will be clarified along with the restoration of China’s seat in the United Nations, so it doesn’t have to be included in the same proposal as an individual question to be resolved. Facts have proved that Resolution 2758 is very successful and full of political wisdom.

 

Looking back on history, by avoiding mentioning Taiwan directly, Resolution 2758 successfully steered clear of the possible political complications caused by the theory of the undetermined status of Taiwan and the “San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan” signed in 1951. Now, although the so-called “undetermined status of Taiwan” professed by the U.S. has not yet been recognized by the international community for its deviation from facts and legal principles, it has created confusion among the member states of the United Nations and created legal obstacles to solving the Taiwan question in accordance with the law. As for the “San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan” enacted under the auspices of the United States and some other Western countries[23], its legality and effectiveness have been questioned by the international community, and China refuses to recognize it, yet it is still nominally a “peace treaty”, though it is full of errors and has no legal effect on China. It cannot be ruled out that the U.S. used this so-called “peace treaty” to interfere with the United Nations’ discussion on resolving the question of Taiwan’s status. In view of the above-mentioned situation, sponsors of Resolution 2758 intentionally avoided direct requirement for the settlement of the question of Taiwan’s status in their proposal. However, it does not affect the UN General Assembly’s decision to deprive of Taiwan’s so-called rights in the United Nations or the de facto decision on Taiwan’s status in the resolution. Evidently, Resolution 2758 managed to achieve success by tactfully avoiding potential resistance and obstacles.         

 

Third, though without directly mentioning Taiwan, Resolution 2758 accelerated the recognition of the one-China principle by the international community and consolidated the legal basis proving Taiwan belongs to China. 

 

As mentioned before, the number of countries establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC peaked after the adoption of Resolution 2758. For a time, recognition of the one-China principle became an essential part of all communiqués on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and other countries. Even the U.S. Government had to change its course in response to the trend of the times, at least by joining the ranks of agreeing with the one-China principle after the resolution was passed. In the three China-U.S. joint communiqués, the U.S. Government pledged that it acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China, and it has no intention to pursue a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan”.[24] Given the above-mentioned facts, how can Glaser’s Report say that the resolution does not address the question of the sovereignty over Taiwan? How can it justify the so-called “Taiwan’s status is not yet determined”?

 

2. “Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the UN” is a fallacy

 

Glaser’s Report, which attempts to sever the ties between Taiwan and Resolution 2758, aims to promote “Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the United Nation” and to echo U.S. policy toward China under new circumstances. However, this is but its own wishful thinking, for there are several insurmountable mountains ahead – the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 and the basic principles of international law.

 

First, Glaser’s Report will result in confrontation between the U.S. and the UN Charter, and the UN General Assembly’s resolution.

 

Glaser’s Report suggests that the U.S. Government allow Taiwan to “meaningfully participate in the United Nations”. In fact, it is placing the U.S. in a position in confrontation with the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, and basic principles of international law. As is known to all, the United Nations is an intergovernmental international organization of sovereign states, with strict conditions and procedural requirements for the qualification of membership. According to the UN Charter, applicants of admission shall be qualified sovereign states and the admission to “membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council”.[25] Accordingly, Taiwan obviously does not meet the requirements to join the United Nations. If the U.S. really wants to bring Taiwan into the United Nations, it must first turn Taiwan into a sovereign state. Does it have the courage and ability to do so?

 

Throughout history, Taiwan has been part of China’s territory, and has never been an independent country. The Taiwan authority does not have the qualifications to represent China to the outside world, nor does it have any legal support for breaking away from China and setting up an independent country. The false narrative that “Taiwan’s status is not yet determined” is a pretext made up by the U.S. side over 70 years ago, which fails to gain the recognition of the international community or give Taiwan the qualification as a country. As Taiwan does not meet the relevant requirements, the resolution of the UN General Assembly 50 years ago has already expelled the representatives of the Taiwan authorities. How come the U.S. still insists on bringing Taiwan into the United Nations in defiance of the UN Charter and resolution? Could the United Nations tolerate such an irresponsible proposal? A just cause has many helpers while an unjust one finds few followers. The clamor for “Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the United Nations” is absolutely groundless.  

 

Second, “Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the United Nations” is a groundless and ridiculous proposition.

 

The United Nations is the most authoritative and universal intergovernmental international organization composed of sovereign states. To join this organization, a sovereign state needs to be admitted and there is no such thing as “participating in the United Nation”. In order to bring Taiwan, a provincial-level administrative region belonging to China, into the United Nations, Glaser’s Report deliberately chooses a vague and mysterious term – allowing for “Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the United Nations”, which is in fact a new trick of the U.S. side using Taiwan as a pawn to undermine China’s development and progress, just like the assertion that “Taiwan’s status is not yet determined” made by the U.S. 70 year ago. It is a fallacy, rife with ambiguities: What exactly does the so-called “meaningful” mean? What are the criteria for “meaningful participation”? How can Taiwan “meaningfully participate in the United Nations”? And who has the right to interpret whether it is “meaningful”? What activities can Taiwan “meaningfully participate in” the United Nations, and what doesn’t such “meaningful participation” relate to China? By using high-sounding words, the report is undoubtedly sowing seeds of disputes and creating obstacles for the future of the United Nations. In particular, it will leave the right to interpret the above questions to the United States, giving it a trump card to exploit Taiwan to contain China. With “meaningful participation at the United Nations” as a disguise, the report brushes aside the UN Charter, Resolution 2758 and basic principles of international law and reflects the U.S.’s will and hegemony as a super power. Can the United Nations accept such a scheme that obviously goes against the will of most member states and seriously disrupts the existing order of the United Nations?   

 

Yet, it is worth noting that if the so-called “Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the United Nations” is left unchecked, it will be exploited to muddle the water and used as a pretext to involve Taiwan into activities within the UN system by those with ulterior motives, especially to seek more room for Taiwan in international affairs, create chaos in the United Nations and troubles for China. This is a bad scenario that the overwhelming majority of UN member states don’t want to see.  

 

There are certain international activities in this globalized era that Taiwan can properly participate in as a region not yet unified with the mainland, yet they should be consistent with its legal status and in conformity with Resolution 2758 and the one-China principle. The Chinese Government has staked out its position in this regard[26]: “Only under the premise of adhering to the one-China principle can the Chinese Government consider dealing with Taiwan’s participation in certain international organizations in a manner agreed and accepted by the Chinese Government in accordance with the nature, statutes and actual conditions of the relevant international organizations.” Resolution 2758 settled once and for all the political, legal and procedural issues of China’s representation in the United Nations, and there is no such thing as “Taiwan’s re-joining”. As to other intergovernmental organizations, Taiwan does not have any right to join, only with a few exceptions.[27] As to international NGOs, Taiwan is allowed to participate in their activities under the name of “Taipei, China”, “Taiwan, China” or “Chinese Taipei”.

 

Third, Glaser’s Report attempts to blur the legal concept of UN admission by playing with words.

Glaser’s Report attempts to blur the legal definition of admission into the United Nations by muddling up the concepts of “admission” and “access”, in an attempt to reduce resistance to Taiwan’s “participation” in the United Nations. The so-called “Taiwan’s meaningful participation at the United Nations” does not hold water legally.    

To be admitted as a member state of the United Nations requires a rigorous legal procedure. The term “admission” is used in the UN Charter (in a few cases, the word “participate” is used in some documents or academic works). Glaser’s Report chooses a vague word “access” in referring to Taiwan’s “joining” the United Nations, alternating with “participate”, a fuzzy expression to conceal Taiwan’s attempt to sneak into the United Nations in disguise.

 

From a legal perspective, “admission” and “access” vary considerably in meaning. Generally speaking, “admission” (加入) is a strict legal term, which involves standardized procedures such as application, qualification review, and voting. After getting admitted, the applicant formally joins the United Nations and assumes the rights and obligations as a member state. “Access” (参与或进入), on the other hand, generally means the act to participate in a certain activity, with no specification about membership requirement, the way of participation or the nature of the act. In the practices of the United Nations, “access” is mostly understood to be used for unofficial activities that are not limited to the participation of member states. In other words, “access” means that participants can be allowed to participate in some activities of the United Nations as non-member states, without any restrictions on their membership status, rights and obligations. 

 

Glaser’s Report deliberately uses “access” instead of “admission”, a move carefully orchestrated to blur the differences between the two. It only reveals that the authors know full well that Taiwan does not meet the requirements for joining the United Nations, and intentionally use the word “access” to makes it easier for Taiwan to get closer to the United Nations, biding their time to take further steps in the future. Second, under the pretext of the “undetermined status of Taiwan”, the report uses the word “access” to dodge legal scrutiny. However, such a clumsy wordplay can’t deceive anyone, and it only exposes the authors’ lack of self-confidence and speculative mentality.

 

Notes on Author

Rao Geping (饶戈平) is Professor of the Peking University Law School.