Editor’s note: Josef Gregory Mahoney, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University and senior research fellow with the Institute for the Development of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics at Southeast University and the Hainan CGE Peace Development Foundation. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
As the leader of China’s Taiwan region, Lai Ching-te promoted the rhetoric on Thursday, claiming that “China and Taiwan are not subordinate to each other.” This irresponsible narrative intentionally ignores UN Resolution 2758, adopted on October 25, 1971, which clearly states: “the General Assembly, recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, considering that the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China is essential both for the protection of the Charter of the United Nations and for the cause that the United Nations must serve under the Charter, recognizing that the representatives of the government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, decides 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.”
Several alternative resolutions submitted by the U.S. or American proxies that would allow both the People’s Republic of China and “Taiwan” as the “Republic of China” to simultaneously maintain membership in the UN then were rejected by a large majority of nations, and instead, Resolution 2758 was adopted. Effectively delegitimized, the “ROC delegation” abandoned the session and declare it illegitimate. However, subsequent efforts were made by Taiwan authorities to be represented in the UN but not as “China.” These overtures were also rebuffed.
For example, in 2007, the UN General Assembly rejected a bid made by Taiwan authorities for UN membership under the name of “Taiwan,” with the understanding that numerous precedents had been established, originating with Resolution 2758, that Taiwan is a province of China, a point that was underscored explicitly in the UN publication, Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties, Handbook.
Second, in the first of the three China-U.S. joint communiques in 1972, which form the foundation of China-U.S. relations, the U.S. acknowledged that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China” and that the “United States government does not challenge that position.” In the second communique in 1978, the U.S. clearly promised to maintain only unofficial contact with the Taiwan region, and in the third one in 1982, the U.S. committed to gradually reducing arms sales to Taiwan or at least not exceeding sales from previous years.
Taken together, Resolution 2758, its clarifications, and the three China-U.S. joint communiques can be described as articulating the one-China principle. According to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “the one-China principle is very clear; that is, there is but one China in the world, Taiwan is part of China, and the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China.” This description is consistent with Resolution 2758 and its legal interpretations within the UN.
That said, the one-China principle is also recognized outside the UN, in state-to-state relations. For example, recognizing the one-China principle is the cornerstone of bilateral ties with China. In this respect, 180 of 192 UN member states, plus the Cook Islands, Palestine and Niue have full diplomatic relations with China. In short, the one-China principle has been acknowledged in one form or another by nearly all of the countries in the world.
It’s with these points in mind that we can consider recent efforts by the U.S., some of its closet NATO, AUKUS and “Indo-Pacific” allies, as well as some people in Taiwan, most especially those associated with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), to cast doubt on the meaning and value of Resolution 2758, and to instead interpret it in ways that would normalize “two Chinas” or “one-China, one-Taiwan.”
There are three basic arguments that have emerged from these camps this year. The first is that the one-China principle is not articulated specifically in Resolution 2758. The second is that this means one should not point to Resolution 2758 as a means for normalizing the one-China principle or Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. The third is to encourage a new interpretation of Resolution 2758 that could in turn be used to establish an international legal precedent for perpetually frustrating reunification and effectively normalizing a “two-state outcome,” an objective desired by DPP separatists and theoretically useful to ongoing anti-China efforts advanced by Washington.
In fact, as the UN itself has made clear in its own interpretations of Resolution 2758, as well as its own rejections of “two-Chinas” or “one-China, one Taiwan,” there is only one China, Taiwan is a province of China, and the government of the PRC is the sole legally recognized representative of China.
No amount of rhetorical game playing, semantics or simply preying on historical ignorance while inciting anti-China hysteria will change these basic facts. Efforts to the contrary should be regarded as aiming to undermine both the UN and international law, as well as the sovereignty and security of China, and should be strongly opposed.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)
