Wang Yingjin: Refuting the erroneous argument that "Resolution 2758 has not resolved Taiwan's representation rights."

Wang Yingjin is a professor at the School of International Relations of Chinese Min university, director of the Research Center for Cross-Strait Relations, and researcher of the National Development Institute. (Photo by Fu Haichuan, Taiwan Net)

In order to create a theoretical basis for Taiwan's participation in the United Nations and other intergovernmental international organizations, the "Taiwan independence" forces claimed that Resolution 2758 adopted by the 26th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1971 only resolved the issue of China's representation and did not resolve the issue of Taiwan's representation, on the grounds that the resolution "not only did not mention Taiwan, but also did not mention that Taiwan was part of the People's Republic of China or that China had any sovereignty over Taiwan." This argument is an erroneous statement by the "Taiwan independence" forces that distort resolution 2758, sever the historical and legal links between the two sides of the strait, and pursue the "Taiwan independence" line, which must be clarified and refuted.

Resolution 2758 has resolved the issue of Taiwan's representation

On October 25, 1971, the 26th session of the United Nations General Assembly voted on a proposal by 23 countries, including Albania, to "restore the representation of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations", which was adopted by a majority of approvals and immediately became an official resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, namely Resolution 2758. The full text of the resolution is divided into two paragraphs, the first half of which reads: "The General Assembly of the United Nations, recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, taking into account that the restoration of the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China is indispensable for the preservation of the Charter of the United Nations and the causes that the Organization of the United Nations must undertake in accordance with the Charter, recognizes that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the sole legitimate representatives of China in the United Nations Organization and that the People's Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council"; Recognize the representatives of her Government as the sole legitimate representative of China in the Organization and immediately expel Chiang Kai-shek's representative from the seats he illegally occupies in the Organization and all the organs to which it belongs. ”

It is not difficult to see from the above that Resolution 2758 has completely resolved the issue of China's representation in the United Nations. Taiwan is a region of China, the Government of the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate Government representing all of China, including Taiwan, and China's representation in the United Nations naturally includes Taiwan. The so-called issue of Taiwan's representation in the United Nations simply does not exist. Specifically, it is reflected in the following aspects:

First, judging from the inner spirit of the resolution, the fact that Resolution 2758 does not mention "Taiwan" precisely indicates that Taiwan's representation belongs to the Government of the People's Republic of China. The resolution not only recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as "The Sole Legitimate Representative of China in the Organization", but also expelled the "representative of Chiang Kai-shek" from the seats it illegally occupied in the Organization and all the institutions to which it belonged. Resolution 2758 decided to restore the qualifications of the Government of the People's Republic of China to exercise China's representation in the United Nations, which is naturally the whole of China, including the Taiwan region. Therefore, Resolution 2758 resolved the issue of China's representation. The question of China's representation and Taiwan's representation are related to inclusion and inclusion, which solves the problem of the Government of the People's Republic of China exercising China's representation in the United Nations, and also solves the problem of its exercise of Taiwan's representation in the United Nations. As for the reason why Resolution 2758 "does not mention Taiwan and does not discuss that Taiwan is a part of the People's Republic of China", it is actually very simple, that is, before Resolution 2758, Taiwan was part of China and was already the mainstream international consensus, and the resolution resolved the "issue of the struggle for representation" rather than "the issue of increasing the number of seats in the United Nations", so there is no need to mention Taiwan in Resolution 2758, just as there is no need to mention Guangdong or Fujian in Resolution 2758. Therefore, the "Taiwan independence" forces' argument that "Resolution 2758 has not resolved the issue of Taiwan's representation" is simply untenable.

Second, from a legal point of view, the government succession of the People's Republic of China to the Republic of China in 1949 included the inheritance of the right to represent Taiwan. After its defeat in 1945, Japan returned Taiwan to China in accordance with the spirit and demands of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. Since the government of the Republic of China at that time was the central government representing China, it took over Taiwan from Japan on behalf of China, and Taiwan has since returned to China. The following year, the "Constitution of the Republic of China" was formulated in Nanjing, and more than 10 "CONGRESS deputies" from Taiwan participated in the "Constitution-making" and subsequent "Constitution-Making", and Taiwan became a part of the inherent territory of the Republic of China in the Constitution. On October 1, 1949, the establishment of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China proclaimed that it would replace the Government of the Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of all of China and the sole legitimate representative at the international level. From the perspective of international law, the succession triggered by this major event is the succession of the government within one country that replaces the old regime, not the succession of one country to the state of another country or region. From the perspective of subjectivity, there is still only one China, and the changes that have taken place are only a change of central power within China, and there is no new country separated from China. China's nature as a single subject of international law has not changed, nor has its sovereignty and territorial boundaries changed. The succession of the People's Republic of China to the government of the Republic of China naturally includes the inheritance of Taiwan as part of the inherent territory of the Republic of China. However, it should be pointed out that although the Government of the People's Republic of China replaced the Government of the Republic of China in 1949 and effectively controlled most of China, it legally inherited the qualification of the "Government of the Republic of China" to exercise China's representation in the United Nations, but due to the obstruction of some Western countries led by the United States at that time, this inheritance relationship was not actually realized until the adoption of Resolution 2758 on October 1971.

Third, judging from the international community's handling of Taiwan-related affairs, the Government of the People's Republic of China exercises the right of representation of Taiwan. The vast majority of countries in the world now recognize the Government of the People's Republic of China as the central government representing China. Under the premise of committing themselves to upholding the one-China principle, these countries have only engaged in unofficial and non-governmental exchanges with Taiwan. With regard to Taiwan's participation in international organizations, international organizations usually consult with and obtain the consent of the Government of the People's Republic of China on whether to allow Taiwan to participate, as well as on issues such as its qualifications, status, and name. For example, Taiwan's participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Olympic Games, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), etc., is only allowed to participate in the appropriate name (e.g., "Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu Separate Customs Territory", "Taiwan Taiwan", "Chinese Taipei", etc.) only after these international organizations have obtained the prior consent of the Government of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, the Government of the People's Republic of China has the right to decide on Taiwan's participation in intergovernmental international organizations.

Fourth, from the standpoint of the United Nations, it is always upheld that the representation of Taiwan belongs to the Government of the People's Republic of China. For a long time, the United Nations has always adhered to handling Taiwan-related affairs on the basis of the one-China principle, holding that there is only one China in the world and that Taiwan is a part of China. After the adoption of Resolution 2758, the World Health Organization, ICAO and other UN-affiliated bodies subsequently adopted similar resolutions to restore the legitimate seat of the People's Republic of China in UN-affiliated bodies. Since then, the United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed and earnestly complied with Resolution 2758 in handling Taiwan-related affairs. For example, in 1972, the World Health Assembly adopted Resolution 25.1, reaffirming Resolution 2758, affirming the issue of China's representation in the WHO. Facts have shown that the United Nations and its subordinate agencies have followed Resolution 2758 with practical actions, adhered to the one-China principle, and adhered to the representation of the Government of the People's Republic of China over Taiwan. It should be noted that while Resolution 2758 addresses the issue of The People's Republic of China's representation in the United Nations and its affiliated agencies, it does not address the issue of China's representation outside the United Nations system( such as other international organizations and diplomatic fields). However, the United Nations is, after all, the most important and influential organization among sovereign States in the world, so the resolutions it adopts still have the effect of similar "case law" to other international organizations and sovereign States, and play an exemplary role that cannot be underestimated.

Fifth, judging from the process of cross-strait games, there is no representation of Taiwan independent of China. After the Kuomintang ruling clique withdrew to Taiwan in 1949, it continued to rule the Taiwan region in the name of the "Republic of China" or the "Government of the Republic of China", but it always adhered to the position and spirit that Taiwan and the mainland belonged to one China. In the 22 years from the establishment of the Government of the People's Republic of China in 1949 to the adoption of Resolution 2758 in 1971, the two sides faced each other across the sea, and both sides insisted on their own regime as the legitimate regime representing all of China. In the final analysis, the dispute between the two sides of the strait over China's representation is a political struggle over which side is qualified to exercise sovereignty on behalf of China in the United Nations, which is itself an embodiment of the fact that both sides of the strait belong to one China. Whichever side exercises China's sovereignty or representation will not change the fact that Taiwan is part of China.

Sixth, judging from the mainstream cognition of the international community, adhering to the one-China principle is a universally recognized norm governing international relations. At present, 180 countries in the world have established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. The major powers and international organizations all adhere to the one-China principle, Taiwan is a part of China, and the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government representing all of China. This shows that the government of the People's Republic of China, representing the whole of China, has gained wide international recognition. The international community generally believes that Taiwan is a part of China's territory and can only maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan.

2. Distort the wrong logic of Resolution 2758

Although Resolution 2758 has long resolved the issue of China's representation in the United Nations and the issue of Taiwan's representation in politics, law, and procedure, the "Taiwan independence" forces have ignored this fact and, proceeding from the perspective of "Taiwan is not a part of China," falsely claimed that Resolution 2758 only resolved the issue of China's representation, but not the issue of Taiwan's representation. On this basis, "Taiwan's status is undecided" and then "Taiwan is an independent sovereign state", aiming to provide theoretical preparation and legal support for "Taiwan's application to join the United Nations".

The basic logic of this "Taiwan independence" argument is that Resolution 2758 resolves the issue of China's representation, that is, the dispute over the right of representation between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the "Government of the Republic of China." Whatever the final result, it is a matter between the two of them, and this has nothing to do with Taiwan, because Taiwan does not belong to either the People's Republic of China nor the "Republic of China," so the settlement of the issue of China's representation is not the same as the settlement of the issue of Taiwan's representation. In order to provide legal support for their arguments, they also looked for evidence from the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty to support the "theory that Taiwan's status is undecided."

The "Taiwan independence" forces can be said to have gone to great lengths to fabricate a complete set of "Taiwan independence" theories and expositions to provide legal support for their "Taiwan independence" ideas. Originally, China's representation rights included Taiwan's representation, but the "Taiwan independence" forces insisted on juxtaposing China's representation with Taiwan's representation in order to argue that "Taiwan is another independent sovereign state other than China." Just as Li Zhanshu, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, pointed out in his speech at the forum marking the 15th anniversary of the implementation of the "Anti-Secession Law" on 29 May this year: "No matter how the 'Taiwan independence' separatist forces attempt to falsify and distort Taiwan's historical facts and how they attempt to package the demands of 'Taiwan independence' claims, they cannot change their sinister intentions of splitting the country." ”

What needs to be pointed out is that the various expositions fabricated by the "Taiwan independence" forces have never been able to get rid of a dilemma, that is, the relationship between Taiwan and the "Republic of China." On the one hand, they want to use the backdoor "Republic of China" and on the other hand, they want to negate the "Republic of China" and seek "Taiwan's de jure independence." Recently, Tsai Ing-wen threw out the so-called "Republic of China Taiwan" argument, and in her re-election speech, she once again advocated that "Taiwan of the Republic of China" is "a country that has come through the stormy waves." This kind of argument attempts to "nationalize" all kinds of "Taiwan independence" discourses and directly limit what they call "this country" from time and space to Taiwan since 1949, thus severing the historical and legal connection between the two sides of the strait that belong to one China. Of course, Tsai Ing-wen's "Republic of China Taiwan" is only a transitional exposition, and its ultimate direction is to establish the so-called "Republic of Taiwan".

III. Distortion of Resolution 2758 in Order to Support the "Theory of Undecided Status of Taiwan"

The distortion of Resolution 2758 by the "Taiwan independence" forces is not isolated, and they also deny the legal effect of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and other international law documents in order to jointly support the "theory that Taiwan's status is undetermined" and further argue that "Taiwan is another independent sovereign state other than China." The author summarizes its entire theoretical system of "Taiwan independence" as follows: "three negations" + "one persistence" = "one goal." Specifically, the so-called "three negations" refer to the negation or distortion of the validity or binding force of the three international legal instruments of the "Cairo Declaration," the Potsdam Proclamation, and Resolution 2758; the so-called "one insistence" refers to the insistence on determining the "validity" of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty; and the so-called "one purpose" means that the purpose of the "Three Negations" and "One Persistence" of the "Taiwan independence" forces is to argue the "theory that Taiwan's status is undetermined" in order to finally establish the "Republic of Taiwan."

The arguments of the "Taiwan independence" forces in denying or distorting the "Cairo Declaration," the Potsdam Proclamation, and Resolution 2758 are consistent and trinitarian rhetoric. The reasons why the "Taiwan independence" forces deny the legal effect of the "Cairo Declaration" and the "Potsdam Proclamation" can be summarized as follows: First, the "Cairo Declaration" and the "Potsdam Proclamation" are declarations and proclamations, not international treaties; second, Japan did not participate in the signing of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, and is not a party, so these two documents do not have legal binding force on Japan. The "Taiwan independence" forces believe that the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed between the Allies and Japan in 1951 is the legally binding treaty for handling the ownership of Taiwan's sovereignty. They believe that in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan only said that it "gave up" Taiwan's sovereignty, but did not express that it would "return" Taiwan to China, so Taiwan's status and future are in an undecided state. That being the case, according to the principle of self-determination of peoples in international law, Taiwan belongs to the 23 million people living on the territory of Taiwan, so the future of the people of Taiwan for self-determination of Taiwan is also legitimate and legitimate.

The above distortion of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation is quite confusing, but after in-depth study, it is not difficult to find that none of these arguments can be established. Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation are international treaties, and although they do not have the words "treaty" or "contract" in their names, they have the constituent elements of an international treaty. The "Japan Unconditional Surrender" signed by China, the United States, and other countries and Japan later also clearly shows that not only did the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain bear the obligation to let Japan return Taiwan to China in accordance with the "Cairo Declaration" and the "Potsdam Proclamation," but Japan also clearly accepted the international obligation to return Taiwan to China. Both documents are legally binding on Japan. Therefore, the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation conform to the principles and norms of international law in both content and form, and are legal and effective legal documents that cannot be denied. These two documents are an important legal basis for Taiwan's return to China in 1945, and are also an important legal proof that Taiwan belongs to China.

In fact, the above arguments are in line with the "referendum constitution-making" and "23 million determinism" advocated by the "Taiwan independence" forces earlier, and the recent "Republic of China Taiwan" by Tsai Ing-wen, which echoes both inside and outside, and they "support" "Taiwan is an independent sovereign state" from different angles and different aspects. The author emphasizes this point in order to make everyone realize that the "Taiwan independence" forces' argument that distorts Resolution 2758 is only a part of the theoretical system of "Taiwan independence" on the island and has its profound and complicated socio-political background. (Originally published by China Review News Agency on June 25, 2020, the original title: "Refuting the Erroneous Argument that Resolution 2758 Has Not Resolved Taiwan's Representation")