Kuomintang’s Preposterous Proposal Regarding UN 2758

This is a translation of the original 荒謬至極的國民黨立院的聯大2758號決議 by I-Chung Lai (賴怡忠), a journalist and columnist. Originally published by Voice Tank. Translation by Stacy Tang.

***

China’s distortion of the 1971 UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 2758—framing it as the legal basis for the “One China Principle”—has faced opposition from the U.S., along with parliamentary resolutions from several Western democracies that reject Beijing’s interpretation.

Yet, Taiwan’s parliament has seen both opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), sidestep discussions on resolutions that would address the issue. It is already absurd that Taiwan’s own legislative body would refuse to align with international pro-Taiwan efforts, however even more outrageous is the counter-proposal from KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-chi and other KMT legislators that is not only impractical but also implicitly endorses the claim that Taiwan is part of China, effectively aiding Beijing’s “One China Principle.”

The international consensus opposes China’s interpretation of Resolution 2758, not the resolution itself

First, the current stance of Western nations, including the United States, regarding Resolution 2758 is to oppose China’s distortion and misuse of the resolution. Beijing claims that this UN resolution certifies that Taiwan is part of China, allowing China to legally represent Taiwan, assert that Taiwan is not a sovereign state, and therefore deny Taiwan the right to participate in any UN-related international organizations. Statements from U.S. State Department officials, as well as resolutions passed by the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) and the parliaments of the Netherlands and Australia, all assert that Resolution 2758 does not pertain to Taiwan. As such, China’s claims that Taiwan is part of China and that China can represent Taiwan based on this resolution are invalid. The U.S. State Department further clarified that the resolution does not determine Taiwan’s status, nor does it deny Taiwan the right to participate in UN-related international organizations.

However, because this resolution was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1971, the objections from the U.S. and other Western parliaments are not against the resolution itself, but against China’s interpretation and the restrictive measures taken by the UN Secretariat based on that interpretation. These measures include actions such as refusing to accept passports from the Republic of China (Taiwan) and asserting that Taiwan lacks the right to express its interest in joining UN conventions through its diplomatic allies. After all, the text of Resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan at all, so linking Taiwan to this resolution is incorrect.

What is important is the KMT’s proposal to “oppose” UN Resolution 2758, a move that effectively calls for the overturning of a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly. While Taiwan’s international allies have condemned China’s harmful distortion of Resolution 2758 to support Taiwan, the KMT’s proposal overlooks the injustices Taiwan has faced as a result of this distortion. Instead, it seeks to reverse a decision made by the UN General Assembly 53 years ago. Although this may superficially seem to advocate for the Republic of China’s participation in the UN, in reality, it shifts the focus by putting forward an impossible proposal, effectively killing other efforts to oppose China representing Taiwan in the UN. One can’t help but question KMT’s true intentions.

The Republic of China’s expulsion following Resolution 2758 lies in Chiang Kai-shek’s insisting on representing all of China

The KMT’s proposal asserts that the Republic of China has always opposed UN Resolution 2758 and calls for the UN to “readmit” the ROC. However, this assertion does not accurately reflect what happened at the time. In fact, countries such as the U.S., Japan, and Australia, which voted against Resolution 2758, arguably have more legitimacy than the KMT in claiming to have “always opposed” the resolution. Following a procedural vote that failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed for “important issues,” the ROC’s representative to the UN delivered a speech and walked out of the meeting, never to return. This means that, technically, the ROC did not cast a vote against Resolution 2758. Therefore, nations like the U.S., Japan, and Australia can more legitimately assert that they have “always opposed” the resolution. Yet, have any of these countries declared that they do not recognize Resolution 2758?

The real reason the ROC was expelled from the UN was Chiang Kai-shek’s absurd claim that the ROC represented all of China. Resolution 2758 specifically acknowledges the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China and “expels Chiang Kai-shek’s representatives” from the seat they illegally occupied at the UN. This marked the collapse of Chiang’s “the right and the evil cannot coexist” principal, leading to a snowball effect of diplomatic breaks for the ROC in the years that followed.

The international consensus on the “One China Policy” has gradually solidified, meaning there is only one China, and that the People’s Republic of China is its sole legitimate representative. However, opinions differ among countries regarding whether Taiwan is part of China, which has allowed Taiwan to maintain a certain level of independence and autonomy. The establishment of this consensus on the One China Policy also marks the rejection of the KMT’s stance of “One China with different interpretations”—the idea that the Republic of China can also represent China. The global community now recognizes that there is only one China, and it is legally represented by the People’s Republic of China.

Research suggests that if Chiang Kai-shek had not insisted on the Republic of China representing all of China, and had not dragged Taiwan into an unwinnable competition over China’s representation, Taiwan might not be in its current predicament. It’s one thing for the KMT to refuse to admit Chiang Kai-shek’s mistakes, but to propose a plan that essentially returns to competing with China over the representation of “One China” is repeating the same error made 53 years ago. If this behavior is not simply foolish, then it is an attempt to lock Taiwan into Beijing’s “One China” principle. We can only hope that the KMT’s intentions are not so malicious.

The West argues that Resolution 2758 does not address Taiwan, but the KMT refuses to support this claim

The KMT’s proposal does not mention Taiwan at all, nor does it support the position that, since Resolution 2758 does not address Taiwan, Taiwan should not be represented by China. Instead, the KMT calls on the “mainland” to respect the existence of the Republic of China but also asserts that the sovereignty between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is undivided, which, in essence, echoes the “One China Principle,” suggesting Taiwan is part of China.

Although the KMT claims that this “China” is the Republic of China and adopts a ” One China, with Respective Interpretations” stance in cross-strait relations, the international community recognizes only the People’s Republic of China as the legitimate representative of China. As a result, the KMT’s claim that “Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China” – within this framework of “One China, with Respective Interpretations” – essentially echoes Beijing’s claim that the People’s Republic of China owns Taiwan.

Some might argue that President Lai Ching-te’s administration also claims Taiwan’s government as the Republic of China and also that it will not “declare independence,” thus raising questions about how Lai’s position differs from the KMT. However, President Lai made it clear in his inauguration speech that “the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other” (a stance also presented by President Tsai Ing-wen in her 2021 National Day speech). The KMT, on the other hand, opposes this position. While the KMT often claims to defend the Republic of China, it rejects the idea that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other, and its proposal specifically mentions that the sovereignty across the strait is undivided. These actions, taken together, end up supporting Beijing’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. If the KMT truly wants to defend the Republic of China, it should at least support the notion that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other, rather than endorsing China’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.

Will the TPP legislators support rejecting China’s distortion of Resolution 2758 while joining IPAC?

What makes the situation more interesting is that the TPP also took the same boycott stance as the KMT when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) proposed a resolution on Resolution 2758 asserting that it does not address Taiwan. Later, TPP legislator Chen Chao-chi passionately declared in the Legislative Yuan that she was the key figure behind Taiwan’s participation in the “Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC),” and refused to be “emotionally blackmailed” by the DPP for her involvement.

There is no doubt that Chen played a key role in securing Taiwan’s participation in IPAC. However, the TPP refused to discuss the DPP’s proposal that aligns with IPAC’s resolution. Although the TPP issued a separate statement urging the executive branch to report on Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, including the UN, the real question now is whether the TPP, as an IPAC member, will act in line with the resolutions passed by IPAC. Or, despite being part of IPAC, will the TPP refuse to support legislation reflecting IPAC’s resolutions or use technicalities to prevent them from passing in the Legislative Yuan? This has nothing to do with emotional blackmail.

Now, all three parties in the Legislative Yuan have issued their own statements and proposals regarding Resolution 2758, and the president of the Legislative Yuan has ruled for them to proceed to a second reading and inter-party negotiation. While the KMT proposal claims to stand for the Republic of China, it echoes the “One China” principle, asserting that Taiwan is part of China. It reverts to the Chiang-era competition with Beijing for representation of “One China” and even advocates overturning a United Nations resolution. This proposal is not a feasible way to counter Beijing’s stance on Taiwan; rather, it runs against the global wave of opposition to China’s distortion of Resolution 2758. Worse, it could lead to the backdoor acknowledgment that Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China. Such an absurd proposal should not be passed.

(Featured photo by Angela Hsiao)