Talk:China and the United Nations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Taiwan (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.


Removed "thereby also recognising Taiwan's status as a province of China"

The status of Taiwan as a province was never in question. The ROC administered it as a province, complete with a governor and provincial assembly (until 1998) separate from the national government in Taipei. The text of the resolution does not specifically state that Taiwan is a "province" of the PRC. Taiwan is never mentioned in the resolution. The ROC govt is referred to as " the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek ". --Jiang 20:28, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with this statement: "thereby implying the ROC as a renegade entity. "

This is the text from the resolution: "...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."

So yes, they were expelled. How should we convey this? --Jiang 03:12, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't "China's seat in the United Nations" be a more accurate title here? Or are we going to add more on China's involvement in the UN? --Jiang 04:30, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes I suppose that would be a more accurate title.

"thereby implying the ROC as a renegade entity." is neither grammatical nor particularly to the point. What the resolution "implied" is surely a matter of opinion. Was the expression "renegade entity" actually used?
On "expelled", this was a rhetorical flourish in the resolution, but it wasn't actually what happened. China wasn't expelled from the UN - all that happened was that the credentials to represent China were transferred from the ROC to the PRC. Dr Adam Carr 04:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sure, "China" wasn't expelled, but the ROC delegation (ie "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek") was. It wasn't merely the credentials to represent China...why didnt the ROC stay as a regular member?

Maybe "renegade entity" is not the right term, but it needs to be somehow conveyed that they were deemed illegitimate by the endorsement of the PRC as the sole Chinese government. --Jiang 04:59, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No Jiang, this just isn't correct. No-one was expelled. The vote was to transfer the right to represent China at the UN from the ROC to the PRC. That's all it was, the rhetoric of the Albanian resolution notwithstanding. The ROC people then cleared their desks and left. That's all that happened. Whether the ROC was a "renegade" or "illegitimate" was not a matter within the General Assembly's competence. Those states which still recognised the ROC continued to do so. Dr Adam Carr 06:58, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how the resolution can be simply dismissed as simple "rhetoric". If it says "expelled" then how was the ROC not expelled? Were they given x hrs to clear their offices/desks or did they voluntarily quit? Were they given the option to stay as a regular member? What happened? --Jiang 01:29, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • You have to remember that the mover of the resolution was the Maoist regime in Albania - the motion was full of rhetoric.
  • The word "expel" had no real meaning since the vote was not about expelling a member state but about transferring the credentials to represent China from the ROC to the PRC.
  • The ROC diplomats, as I recall, immediately left the building and no physical expulsion took place.
  • The "option to stay as a regular member" is a meaningless expression. The ROC diplomats were at the UN as representatives of China. Once the General Assembly decided they were not representatives of China they had no status. They could not stay to represent Taiwan because Taiwan is not and never has been a state.
  • It is only since 1991 that the ROC has decided to try and gain readmission to the UN by pretending that there is a state of Taiwan, without actually declaring independence or renouncing their claim to be the government of China.
  • Adam 01:55, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why could there not be two representatives for China? The Republic of China and People's Republic of China could both be considered separate states. Was remaining as a non-SC member Republic of China permissible? Could the ROC stay as a member state not representing China (despite having China in its official name)?

Jiang, I will try one more time :)
There could not be two representatives of China because both the PRC and the ROC claimed to be the govt of the whole of China. The options of "two Chinas" or "One China One Taiwan" were not acceptable to either govt at that time. --AC
Just because the overlap of this territorial dispute is so immense does not mean both cannot coexist in the UN, so long as the institution allows them in. UN membership is not restricted by overlapping claims. If one country is claimed by another, yet exercises sovereinty, there's nothing in the UN charter that stipulates that this state is forbidden to join. The problem was with these two states not tolerating each other, not the world not tolerating both. This is why the PRC was not a member until 1971 and the ROC not a member afterwards. The two parties kept each other out. It wasn't illegal to accept both, just impossible. --Jiang 05:58, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The ROC (at least before Chen Shui-bian) never claimed there to be a state of Taiwan. Read the 1998 resolution posted on the page. It claims that the Republic of China is a sovereign state, deserving membership. They were no longer trying to be the sole respresntative for "China". I think the resolution under Chen state "Republic of China (Taiwan)" (with the Taiwan in perenthisis, as is displayed on their government websites).

Taiwan cannot have it both ways. If it wants to be recognised as a state, it must (a) formally renounce its claim to be the government of China and (b) declare independence from China. There are of course good reasons why it can't / won't do these things, but unless it does neither the UN nor any other country can recognise it as a state. --AC
If the Republic of China (not Taiwan) wants to be recognized as a state, both the PRC and ROC must allow the international community to recognize both at the same time (even though they dont recognize each other). This is the way it is with the two Koreas. Territorial claims are irrelevant, as long as these two parties dont force the countries they're working with to swear allegiance to these claims. I dont see how a name change is necessary here. Wouldn't point (a), i.e., renouncing claim over the territory the ROC does not control suffice? Even without this declaration, the ROC let Mongolia in (under some pressure, of course).--Jiang 05:58, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are countless overlapping territorial claims in the world. This doesnt stop these states from becoming UN members. --Jiang 04:08, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can't think of any other circumstance in which two governments have claimed sovereignty over the same country (as opposed to a piece of territory) for a long period of time. This wasn't the case with the two Germanys nor is it the case with the two Koreas. Adam 04:30, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
How so? --Jiang 05:58, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can't answer a question that non-specific.

Do the two Korea's not claim each others' territory? They certainly dont recognize each other. --Jiang 20:35, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The thing is that both PRC and ROC government(by their constitution) claim that they represent the whole of China. It is not the question about two countries, but two governments. The PRC government claims that it is the sole legal government of China, including mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao. And ROC government claims that it is the sole legal government of China, including mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao(and maybe, outer Mongolia). There are only two ways for ROC to enter UN:
  1. They enter under the name of ROC, that means UN have to recognise ROC as the sole government of China, and hence "expel" the representative of PRC government(there can't be two governments for one country, right?). In this case, they have to go through the UN General Assembly and have a majority vote(which is unlikely, as few countries would vote against the will of PRC)
  2. Or, they enter by the name of Taiwan, i.e. Taiwan enters as an independent nation. But it is not possible because the admission of new members have to go through the security council, and China(seat held by PRC government) is a permenent member and has veto power. --Formulax 10:34, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Or they could still enter as the ROC, but by renouncing their claim to the mainland. The ROC could simply by Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, etc. A government/state with China in its name does not have to claim the entire entity known as China. Why is changing the name necessary? What about the two Koreas? Two Gernamys? Two Yemens? Why can there not be two Chinas?

They dont have to recognize the ROC's claim over all China if the ROC doesnt force them to. (De facto) China is not one country. The PRC and ROC function as separate countries. They would be officially recognized as such (like the 2 Koreas) if they both tolerted it. The thing is that they dont.

This is all besides the point. Did the resolution expel the ROC? What do the "experts" think? Research? --Jiang 21:47, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

*Bangs head on desk* Jiang you're just asking the same questions over and over again, no matter how many times it gets answered. Adam 00:06, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh my! Dont bang too hard! My question about the 2 Koreas hasn't been answered yet. Where are the "experts"? --Jiang

Yeah, they can keep the title ROC if they want to, but isn't it the same as #2 above? Any admission of new members to the UN has to go through the security council, and PRC is a permanent member, and WILL use its veto power if ROC wants to apply for membership. I think the difference is that PRC has veto power, while the koreans don't.--Formulax 05:49, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The other difference is that both the two Koreas and the two Germanys were (a) created at the same time, and (b) admitted to the UN at the same time. Both divisions arose from Soviet occupations of parts of those countries at the end of WW2, so neither half had ever administered the territory of the other half (except briefly during the mobile phases of the Korean War). The BRD and DDR were admitted to the UN together, as were the ROK and the DPRK, so they had to accept this if they wanted to be admitted. This is very different to the situation with the ROC and the PRC, in which the ROK had at one time governed the whole of China and had represented the whole of China at the UN. This is why the rival claims of sovereignty are so absolute and irreconcilable. Adam 06:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Like I said, the only reason both are not in the UN at the same time is that they are keeping each other out. Just as the two Koreas are forced to accept each other (and dont hold the veto to exclude the other), it would be theoretically possible to have two Chinas in the UN is both accepted the existence of the other, despite their overalapping territorial claims. They would just have to ignore/work with these claims like the two Koreas. If this happened, unlike what you state, Taiwan independence would not be necessary.
The resolution acted as if the ROC was never a member, while it "restored" the PRC even though it was never a member. What it did to the ROC needs to be made more clear. The ROC did not just hang there. I dont think it was given the option to stay. If not, what? --Jiang 06:30, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK Jiang this is going to be my last attempt to explain this to you:

The official position of both Beijing and Taipei is that:

  • China is one country
  • Taiwan is a province of China
  • Only one goverment can represent China at the UN
  • There is no such country as Taiwan, so Taiwan cannot be a member of the UN

The only point on which they disagree is which of them is the single legitimate government of China.

It is true that the Taipei government no longer asserts that it is the government of the whole of China, and says that it wants to join the UN. But it knows perfectly well that this makes no sense.

Can someone provide a legal reference for the statement that "Taiwan is a province of China." Thanks. (According to what our professor at the university told us, Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, and there are no international legal documents definitively saying that it was ever RETURNED to China.) Hmortar 10:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Easily.
  1. Cairo Conference declaration text: "It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed."
  2. Potsdam Declaration text: "(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."
  3. Instrument of Surrender of Japan: "We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."
-- Миборовский 06:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Until the Taipei government formally renounces its claim to be the government of China, and declares that Taiwan (under whatever name) is an independent country, it cannot, even in theory, join the UN. A place which is not a country, and which does not even claim to be a country, cannot join the UN.

That is my last comment on this subject. Adam 07:16, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I quote myself: Or they could still enter as the ROC, but by renouncing their claim to the mainland. The ROC could simply by Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, etc. A government/state with China in its name does not have to claim the entire entity known as China. Why is changing the name necessary?

Although either ignoring or renouncing claims by both parties is necessary, it makes little sense to have to change the name of the country. The name is irrelevant. The Republic of China is already an independent country. There is no need to declare another one.

Somehow, I feel this has long become a politcal "debate". I guess it is. --Jiang 07:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


-Technically speaking, since Taiwan is part of China, therefore it continues to stay in the international organization of UN under the name of People's Republic of China. Just like all other cases as the case of UN, PRC represents China and Taiwan is an inalienable territory of People's Republic of China.

Historically, since Japan nullified Treaty of Taipei, Taiwan's status becomes somewhat unclear. However, if there is concensus that general election brings ROC sovereignty upon Taiwan then everything is pretty much finalized with the Taiwan question and the PRC statement and PRC scenario apply.


It is not clear what the "whole of China" means. Does this include Tibet or outer Mongolia, both of which the ROC claims? What specificially is the ROC to renounce? Just renounce its sovereignty over Xinjiang and therefore satisfy this condition? Using the term Mainland China makes it much more precise. --Jiang 19:24, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Huh? Someone explain this...[edit]

Article (wikification stripped): "The PRC has been sparing in its use of the Security Council veto, only using it four times: in 1972 to veto the admission of Bangladesh, in 1972, in conjunction with the Soviet Union to veto a resolution on the ceasefire in the Six-Day War, in 1997 to veto ceasefire observers to Guatemala, and in 1999 to veto an extension of observers to Macedonia."

OK...I get all except the Six-Day War one. Someone want to explain the whys and wherefores of that veto? --Penta 22:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Misleading sentence[edit]

The ROC government withdrew to the island province of Taiwan (also retaining 
several islands of Fujian), where it has continued to exist ever since.

The sentence above implies when ROC government retreat to Taiwan, the government already acquired the sovereignty of Taiwan. This is a misleading POV. Taiwan was de jure part of Japan until 1952. ROC's move of establishing a province on the island before 1952 is illegal and thus the sentence sheerly represents the Chinese governments' point of view and ignores the fact that Taiwan did not belong to ROC at that time. If my edit does not satisfy your grammatical standard, please correct it and fix the POV in your own way.Mababa 01:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether de jure or de facto, the legality of establishing a province there is not asserted or implied in the sentence. What is implied is that a province existed/exists there (it does does not need to be de jure). There was an administration called the Taiwan Provincial Government that had/has jurisdiction over Taiwan island and the Pescadores. That's all that needs to happen for us to call it a province. Saying otherwise is reading too much into the sentnece. --Jiang 04:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, establishing a province with legal sovereignty is norm whereas the situation here is unusual. Though the sentence does not explicitly imply the legality, for a lay person or outstander to read the article, one would easily assume the sovereignty had already established in 1949. Thus, I tried to fix this potential POV by using Taiwan to replace the province of Taiwan. Yes, the Provincial Government has/had jurisdiction over the island as a occupation force, not as a de jure sovereignty authority. I still believe this somehow has to be modified so that the nuance would be addressed.Mababa 04:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sovereignty was established, whether it was de facto or de jure depending on opinion. We are not implying either way. This would almost amount to deleting all references to "Republic of China" or "Israel" because there is significant dispute over their de jure authorities. --Jiang 05:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is surely a moot question. I will accept the current version of text as people interested in Taiwan question probably would have some extent of exposure of the debate. However, I still recommend to remove the province and use Taiwan directly to avoid the potential sovereignty POV. Please consider my suggestion and make your decision on what to do about it. If you want me to remove the NPOV sign myself, just let me know. I apologize for raising a debate seemed to be frivolous. I still stand by my suggestion though.Mababa 04:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's the problem with saying that Taiwan was the de-jure part of Japan untill 1952. One could use this argument to imply that North and South Korea are de-jure parts of Japan untill 1951. Tell that to the Koreans and see how they respond. Allentchang 17:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not know. Perhaps you can tell me. I assume that they would be happy to hear about that the SFPT stipulated the independence of Korea. On the otherhand, I am not quite sure if they would be happy to hear about PRC's unqual treaty doctrine and the nullification of Sino-japnasese treaties in Treaty of Taipei since these claims will make Korea fall into the hands of China again. If you have any Korean friends, perhaps you can give us some insight on how they feel to PRC and ROC's claim. Fortunately, SFPT nullified PRC and ROC's claims already.Mababa 00:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

November 23, 1971?[edit]

Anybody knows where the date in the introductory sentence, "China's seat in the United Nations has been occupied by the People's Republic of China since November 23, 1971." comes from? Logic would dictate that once the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 was passed on October 25, 1971, then China's seat would be occupied by the PRC. I couldn't locate any significance of November 23, 1971 from any web search. Chanheigeorge 19:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a refernce [1]. November 23, 1971 should be the date when the PRC attended the UN Security Council meeting for the first time. Chanheigeorge 22:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why no ROC veto?[edit]

Out of curiosity, by what mechanism was the ROC UN delegation excluded from the vote that essentially expelled them from the UN? On a practial level, I can see why it would be silly to allow them a veto over the acceptance of their own credentials -- obviously they would never vote for it. But does the UN charter have a rule on the subjet? --Jfruh (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The PRC was not admitted as a new member and the ROC was not expelled as approving and revoking membership has to be approved by the UNSC. Instead, the issue was over reognition - which government constituted the legitimate government as "China" - and was put in front of the UNGA. Technically and officially, the PRC was admitted as a successor state of the ROC in the same way Russia replaced the Soviet Union in 1991. "China" has been in the UN since its founding; it has just been represented by different governments. --Jiang 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the technicalities of how it worked -- sorry if my wording didn't reflect that. It would be more accurate to say that the UN ceased to accept the credentials of the ROC representatives and began accepting the credentials of the PRC representatives for the China seat, yes? My question still stands, though: I thought the five permanent security council powers had veto power over everything the UN does. Why couldn't the ROC representatives have vetoed the decision about which Chinese representatives to recognize? --Jfruh (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing the Security Council with the General Assembly. The Five Permanent Members are permanent members of the Security Council, and they could have used their vetoes (or got their friends to) if the matter had been before the Security Council.
Instead, the matter (reasons explained in the article) was debated in the General Assembly and the resolution passed there. No country has a veto power in the General Assembly. --129.78.64.102 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't this set a precedent whereby the majority of the General Assembly can potentially "overrule" the Security Council by simply "recognizing" alternative governments of countries on the Security Council if they don't agree with the General Assembly? --Spoon! (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have cited 1971 Yearbook of UN: In a Security Council meeting on Feb. 9, 1971, Somalia objected to the credentials of the representative of Republic of China as China representation, and ROC and the United States responded that the question of China's representation should not be dealt with in the Security Council.

Thus the matter was not discussed further in the Security Council. If you read the 1971 Yearbook, you will notice neither USA nor ROC tried to steer the issue from General Assembly back to Security Council in 1971. Could they have done that? I think an expert opinion would help.

IIUC, the power of Security Council, and veto, is limited to matters related to security and membership, etc. It is not unlimited. I'd think because the issue is raised as a matter of credential, not admission of new members, it bypassed the Security Council. ROC did raise another issue in the General Assembly, that expulsion of a member state would require 2/3 vote according the UN Charter, but that proposal was voted down. Since there is no separate body that governs interpretation of UN Charter, the General Assembly interpreted itself. It's all politics :-) Happyseeu (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent events with regard to Taiwan[edit]

The last paragraph currently needs citations. As for the US State Department making some sort of "official" statement about how it does not consider Taiwan part of the PRC, I must point out that it strikes me as highly unlikely, and barring quality citations, something that should be removed soon. The reason is that (1) something that is so sensitive would inevitably gets parsed through an elaborate word dance, and that (2) if true, I would expect massive protests by the PRC, none of which has made the news. As a matter of fact, the US has recently criticized the Chen Shui-bian regime for stirring things up and trying to alter the "status quo."Ngchen 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the first and last sections need attention. There is a lot of weasel words, and what looks suspiciously like GIO propaganda material.
Of more concern is the amount of original research, especially the large chunks of (bad) analysis of international law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

List of applications, votes on RoC membership[edit]

Can someone provide a list of RoC applications after 1971, what was happened to each of them, under what name it applied (RoC, RoC on Taiwan, RoC (Taiwan)), for what status (member, observer), what states were in favor and what were against (if there was a vote in SC or GA), sponsor states of the application (if such). 88.203.201.214 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Need citation[edit]

It was still possible in 1971, even with the imminent admission of the PRC to the Security Council seat, for the ROC to retain membership in the UN. However, Chiang Kai-Shek insisted on withdrawing from the UN, even though it was not required to do so by Resolution 2758. This move was viewed as a strategic blunder, and undermined the diplomatic work by the US aimed at keeping Taiwan in the UN as a member of the General Assembly.

It's actually not clear to me from the discussion that this was possible. Resolution 2758 quite explicitly "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" Roadrunner (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This clearly was not the case from the debates on 2758.

Thus, the government of the Republic of China was expelled from UN. However, the ROC was asked if it wanted to remain in the United Nations as a separate country, but not as the lawful representative of the Chinese people.citation needed The ROC President Chiang Kai-shek refused the invitation, saying he would not allow the ROC to be a member of the UN if the PRC was allowed in.

Roadrunner (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read 1971 Yearbook of the United Nations, you will see various proposals were put forth by allies of ROC, but none of those passed. Whether some different maneuver would have succeeded for dual representation would be difficult to know for sure. Chiang Kai-Shek's withdrawal from the UN was just before Resolution 2758 was voted on, when it was clear that it would pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyseeu (talkcontribs) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

As the links to Taiwan in the UN and Taiwan: Ready for U.N. Participation are dead, I have removed them. However, if you can provide replacement links, it would be appreciated. L talk 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

US and UN and RoC[edit]

There is a bald statement in the article stating that:

Ban's comments [concerning Taiwan being part of China etc] also prompted the US to restate its position regarding the status of Taiwan. They presented a white paper stating among others that:

"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 position."[1]

A source for the bald statement is a Heritage foundation article. However that article actually says

"In July 2007, the United States reportedly presented a nine-point demarche in the form of a "non-paper" to the U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs that both restated the U.S. position that it takes no position on the ques­tion of Taiwan's sovereignty and specifically rejected recent U.N. statements that the organization con­siders "Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the PRC."

The article sets out the full text of the "demarche" reportedly made by the US to the UN which includes the statement that

"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 position."

There is a big difference between somebody "reportedly" doing something (i.e. a speculative statement) and saying somebody did something (a statement of fact). Also, even the Heritage Foundation does not suggest that there was any "white paper"....a "non-paper" is what they speculate was given. The article should be fixed accordingly. I think the Heritage Foundation article is a good read though and I hope the link in a footnote can be kept. Regards. Staighre (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

World Health Organization[edit]

The obscure references to the WHO in the article kind of avoid mentioning the actual main issue -- which is that at first the WHO refused to help Taiwan deal with the Avian Flu in any way, and so received much criticism for putting ultra-politicized ideological purity far above actually helping people... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SC Rules of Procedure, and other matters[edit]

I have removed a section that was partly redundant with the previous section. Two main problems with the paragraph:

1. It refers to the "ROC and international newspapers such as the WSJ..." but only cites the WSJ. I have removed the "ROC and international newspapers such as" part because it was not reflected in the cite.

2. It states that Ban's move was contrary to UN Security Council Rules of Procedure. This seems to be original research, since the source cited is the rulebook itself and not any secondary research that supports the sentence. The application never made it onto the agenda, and it's debatable whether Rule 59 is even engaged. For reference, the rules are here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Various edits[edit]

I have just made a few edits. Please don't revert them without at least explaining why.... There are a lot of mistakes in the article as it stood...its still not great and lacks references in many places...and in some parts is even purely speculative imaginative but i have tried to keep my edits to a minimum so as not to get into too much of the politics around all this etc....Self-censoring etc! A defeat of sorts. 84.203.76.88 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't the ROC have a Veto?[edit]

Recently this

The General Assembly Resolution declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations." Because this resolution was on an issue of credentials rather than one of membership, it was possible to bypass the Security Council where the United States and the ROC could have used their vetoes.[citation needed]

was changed to

The General Assembly Resolution declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations." Because this resolution was on an issue of credentials rather than one of membership, it was possible to bypass the Security Council where the United States could have used its veto.[citation needed]

My understanding is that the China seat was always a permanent member of the security council. So wouldn't the ROC (which occupied the China seat) have had a veto too, and wouldn't they have been even more likely to exercise it than the Americans?Readin (talk) 06:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Article 27 of the UN Charter states:

  1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
  2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
  3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

If the third clause was worded that way before 1971 then I presume it acted as a conflict of interest block on the ROC exercising a veto itself. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This resolution was by the General Assembly, not the Security Council.--... there's more than what can be linked. 11:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Why China as a permanent member of the UN security council[edit]

I found not much mention about, and am puzzled over why China was selected as a permanent member of the Security council back since the end of World War II. China wasn't very strong in military, economic or social terms in the early 20th century. Can someone help to clarify this, and add it to the article where appropriate? NoNews! 05:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to the article with reference. At least two reasons:

  • China was one of the 4 major victors of World War II. This is no small feat, considering many European and Asian countries are fully occupied by the Axis Powers at one time during the war, but China was among the few countries that was never fully occupied and kept on fighting.
  • China was one of the 4 nations that drafted UN Charter that, among others, established Security Council.

As an analogy, China both won the qualification to play at the table, and help made the rules for the table. Happyseeu (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

violently repression of indigenous population[edit]

These claims are complicated by the fact that for most of its history on Taiwan the ROC,
as a single party state, violently repressed the indigenous population through the
White Terror, most notably in the 228 Massacre.

I removed this sentence. It doesn't seem relevant, though of course atrocities are sad, and was not backed up by any citation (that would have to relate it to the UN issue discussed). It also says nothing of why any claims would be complicated. Furthermore, since this is an artical about China's status in the UN, it seems rather absurd to claim it would affect ones claims to statehood or participation in the UN to be a one-party state that has repressed the indigenous population and massacred ones own people in the past. 83.254.136.152 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nixon conversation[edit]

Conversation Between President Nixon and the Ambassador to the Republic of China (McConaughy) Washington, June 30, 1971, 12:18–12:35 p.m. A primary source, but cited in many secondary sources such as the book The Generalissimo. Some quotes of interest, which can color our portrayal of the US's motivations to support PRC's UN bid:

...

Nixon: I mean, if they get in—if they should—and when they— that's why the whole two China thing is so really rather ridiculous, even if we eventually have to come to that. But our position will basically be that we support the Republic of China and especially in the UN. We will continue to. We will not support any resolution—our China position will not support any propositions that have the Republic of China put out of the UN.

...

Nixon: They sent the most beautiful gifts to our daughter's [unclear] wedding and so forth. We just—that's the way we're gonna deal with it. The personal considerations here are—we'll put it this way, we're not about to engage in what the Kennedy administration did with Diem. Because they might think that way. Either physically or philosophically, we don't do that to our friends.

...

McConaughy: Yeah. The President [Chiang Kai-shek] says repeatedly that you are the President, and your administration is the administration that understands the China issue and really sympathizes with his government, understands its ideals and its aspirations and its role in the world better than any other American president, any preceding administration, and he's unshaken in that view.

...

Nixon: To be perfectly frank with you, if I were to be, if I were in their position, and the UN, as I say, the UN moves in that direction, I would just say the hell with the UN. What is it anyway? It's a damn debating society. What good does it do?

McConaughy: Yeah.

Nixon: Very little. [unclear] They talk about hijacking, drugs, the challenges of modern society, and the rest just give hell to the United States. That's all they do.

...

McConaughy: And they've been phenomenally successful, as you well know. And that remarkable rate of growth is continuing. Their foreign—total foreign trade last year was greater than that of entire England and China.

Nixon: Yeah. Sure.

McConaughy: Just over $3 billion, which slightly exceeded the total import and export trade of the Chinese Communists.

Nixon: Just think of that.

McConaughy: Fourteen million [people on Taiwan] against 750 million [people on the mainland]—they had a little larger foreign trade.

Nixon: Well, you can just stop and think of what could happen if anybody with a decent system of government got control of that main land. Good God.

McConaughy: Yeah.

Nixon: There'd be no power in the world that could even—I mean, you put 800 million Chinese to work under a decent system—

McConaughy: Yeah.

Nixon: —and they will be the leaders of the world. The Indians— you could put 200 billion Indians to work, and they wouldn't amount to a goddamn.

McConaughy: Yeah.

Nixon: You know, basically they're different kinds of people.

McConaughy: That's right. Yeah.

Nixon: But the Chinese, they're all over Asia. I know. They've got what it takes.

McConaughy: Yeah, with an elected system of government. The one thing that— Shrigley (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverting 125.132.155.139's PRC-centric edit[edit]

I've reverted the lead section to editions earlier than 125.132.155.139's edit. The problem with the edit is it is purely from PRC's POV. It started with the sentence 'The People's Republic of China took over the membership in the United Nations, as well as the permanent seat of the United Nations Security Council, held by the Republic of China, in 1971.' This puts a singular event, the transfer of China's seat from ROC to PRC, out of portion. It might be appropriate on an article titled 'China seat from ROC to PRC', but not on 'China and the United Nations'.

Other Wikipedia articles about UN, such as United States and the United Nations, France and the United Nations, United Kingdom and the United Nations all start with the sentence '<country> is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council'. It's appropriate for this article to start with the sentence 'China is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council'.

ROC joined UN as a charter member and permanent member of Security Council, and the event preceded the existence of PRC. This is an important and undisputed fact for the article. The lead section shouldn't focus on how PRC got China seat from ROC in UN, which is what 125.132.155.139's edit is about.

If there are edits from 125.132.155.139's that's worth preserving, it can be discussed further. But I think the edit's overall structure is inappropriate. Happyseeu (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the article[edit]

I see that now there's an idea to split the article between the RoC and PRC. I disagree with such a move, as the UN-membership of China has been historically defined by the RoC-PRC divide. Also, in the relations of the two, the question of UN membership has been an important factor. There is little point in discussing just the RoC and the UN or just the PRC and the UN. In a way this article is a lot like Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations.--\color{Blue}\mathcal{M}\color{Blue}\vec{( e\ ,}\color{Blue}t ) = ? 06:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with the splitting. Both RoC @ UN and PRC @ UN are essential for this article. And, I think the biggest problem of this article is not the membership issue but the lack of valuable information about China's actual positions or actions at UN. Most of the article now focuses on the membership issue rather than real helpful contents. I think the membership issue is addressed too much and efforts should be made about some 'real contents'. I myself will try to contribute some. Chinacxt (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What should be in the Activity section?[edit]

An "Activity" section was added recently, but it's not clear to me what should go into Activity section, and what should go into "History" section. Unless there is some rational, clear criteria, the division would seem arbitrary.

If "Activity" means "Current activity", the title should just say that.

Comments?

Happyseeu (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In any event, awoid the word "current" - it is indeterminate and hence unencyclopaedic. --\color{Blue}\mathcal{M}\color{Blue}\vec{( e\ ,}\color{Blue}t ) = ? 13:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll wait for people that added "Activity" section to explain how it differs from "History" section.

Happyseeu (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Tkacik, John J., Jr. (19 June 2008). "Taiwan's "Unsettled" International Status: Preserving U.S. Options in the Pacific". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 2009-07-23.