Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:26, 24 November 2014

China B‑class Top‑importance

	China portal 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taiwan B‑class High‑importance

	Taiwan portal 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.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Vote

What was the vote on Resolution 2758? Which members voted for/voted against/abstained? 24.54.208.177 20:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know this, but unfortunately I cannot find the answer yet.--Jusjih 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. It would be very useful to know which supported, voted against and possible abstentions. Neil the Cellist 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the voting record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.154.142 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed Voting: Country A ARGENTINA A BAHRAIN A BARBADOS A COLOMBIA A CYPRUS A FIJI A GREECE A INDONESIA A JAMAICA A JORDAN A LEBANON A LUXEMBOURG A MAURITIUS A PANAMA A QATAR A SPAIN A THAILAND A Count 17 N AUSTRALIA N BOLIVIA N BRAZIL N CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC N CHAD N CONGO (LEOPOLDVILLE) N COSTA RICA N DAHOMEY N DOMINICAN REPUBLIC N EL SALVADOR N GABON N GAMBIA N GUATEMALA N HAITI N HONDURAS N IVORY COAST N JAPAN N KHMER REPUBLIC N LESOTHO N LIBERIA N MADAGASCAR N MALAWI N MALTA N NEW ZEALAND N NICARAGUA N NIGER N PARAGUAY N PHILIPPINES N SAUDI ARABIA N SOUTH AFRICA N SWAZILAND N UNITED STATES N UPPER VOLTA N URUGUAY N VENEZUELA N Count 35 Y AFGHANISTAN Y ALBANIA Y ALGERIA Y AUSTRIA Y BELGIUM Y BHUTAN Y BOTSWANA Y BULGARIA Y BURMA Y BURUNDI Y BYELORUSSIAN SSR Y CAMEROON Y CANADA Y CEYLON Y CHILE Y CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) Y CUBA Y CZECHOSLOVAKIA Y DEMOCRATIC YEMEN Y DENMARK Y ECUADOR Y EGYPT Y EQUATORIAL GUINEA Y ETHIOPIA Y FINLAND Y FRANCE Y GHANA Y GUINEA Y GUYANA Y HUNGARY Y ICELAND Y INDIA Y IRAN Y IRAQ Y IRELAND Y ISRAEL Y ITALY Y KENYA Y KUWAIT Y LAOS Y LIBYAN ARAB REPUBLIC Y MALAYSIA Y MALI Y MAURITANIA Y MEXICO Y MONGOLIA Y MOROCCO Y NEPAL Y NETHERLANDS Y NIGERIA Y NORWAY Y PAKISTAN Y PERU Y POLAND Y PORTUGAL Y ROMANIA Y RWANDA Y SENEGAL Y SIERRA LEONE Y SINGAPORE Y SOMALIA Y SUDAN Y SWEDEN Y SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC Y TOGO Y TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Y TUNISIA Y TURKEY Y UGANDA Y UKRAINIAN SSR Y USSR Y UNITED KINGDOM Y UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA Y YEMEN Y YUGOSLAVIA Y ZAMBIA Y Count 76 MLDIVES OMAN CHINA Grand Count 131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.154.142 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short resolution?

Is it just me, or is this resolution really short? Yes, I tried confirming this, but the official UN resolutions site is currently down and obviously there's possible bias by looking at TaiwanDocuments.org , or even examining the resolution provided on Wikipedia. (No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia sucks, on the contrary, I love this website) Neil the Cellist 02:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not atypical for these kinds of resolutions to be short. This is because it's not really setting up a program or the like, but merely saying "The PRC represents China, the ROC does not". It's decision on a particular question, rather than the addressing of a problem, so all that's needed is the decision and a bit of justification, and you've got a resolution. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

According to the "Controversy" section, ROC government claims that the expulsion was illegally, because the Resolution 2758 has violated Article 6 of UN Charter.

However, a case can be made that ROC was recognized as the sole legitimate Chinese government, replacing imperial Ching government in 1912,

There was and is a state named China both before and after 1912: because the number of states didn't increase; and that ROC inherited all rights and obligations of Ching government.

In 1949, CCP overthrew KMT's ROC government and established PRC government. PRC asked other states to recognize that "there is only one China" and that " PRC government was the sole legitimate government of China".

In 1971, Resolution 2758 was adopted by UN General Assembly, expelling ROC government and transferring UN China seat to PRC government and recognizing PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.

This clearly indicates that PRC was succeeded ROC in 1949 just in the same manner that ROC succeeded imperial Ching government in 1912.

I suggest that the aforementioned information should be integrated into the main article.

Siyac 10:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not the case, because the UN did not exist back in 1912, so the ROC never replaced Imperial China as a member of the UN.

--Damifb (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the world's population and country disagrees that tiny Taiwan of 20 million can represent a nation of 1.4 billion.

It is so clear that Chiang Kai Shek's government is unlawful and violates UN Charter according to the UN Resolution 2758 therefore China's seat was restored to People's Republic of China. Accroding to the UN Resolution 2758 there is only one government that represents China, which is the People's Republic of China, unlike the case of West and East Germany and North/South Korea, UN Resolution 2758 sets the rule to make ROC impossible to re-enter UN.

-"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."

However, Taiwan is still trying to enter UN by asking countries that have diplomatic relation with it to attempt to apply membership in the UN General Assembly each year since 90's. Whether such effort by Taiwan would succeed or not, there are two factors number one is PRC's anti-succession law and number two is Taiwanese seperation from the ROC (ROC is not recognized by the UN).

Controversy

It should be mentioned how PRC's exclusion from the UN prevented nearly 25% of the world's population from being represented by their government because of Western greediest and preference for tiny KMT Taiwan.

Stop POV pushing

User:82.170.31.188 would you please stop POV pushing of what wasn't said in the resolution? --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clarify the process re: formal expulsion and the ROC's de facto expulsion. This process probably needs to be explained in more detail in the article. I typed the latest edit off the top of my head.--Jiang 07:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, your clarification looks fine. I made some minor modifications though, you can check if it is ok. --WinHunter ^(talk) 07:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clarification needed

what, in the opinion of the United Nations General Assembly, is the definition of "China"? According to our China article, China is "a cultural region, an ancient civilization, and, depending on perspective, a national or multinational entity extending over a large area in East Asia". Now, last time I checked, UN membership wasn't for ancient civilizations or cultural regions, but for sovereign states. It would seem likely that the General Assembly has a notion of "China" as a "national entity", but how is that defined? Does it include a definition along the lines of territory, or ethnicity? If so, what is it? If they don't clarify what they mean by "China", the resolution is semantically empty, or worse, open to interpretation according to the tastes of each reader. dab (𒁳) 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the parlance of the UN, China = PRC. Thankfully they do not refer to states based on what their respective Wikipedia articles say. L ^talk 06:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has UN sovereignty over China? if no, how can UN adjudge China belong to whom? To my opinion, this was an anti-international law act with the foreign super power, totally illegal. --SH9002 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, the lack of specific reference was deliberate. If they admit Taiwan to the UN, that implies they reject China's position. On the other hand if they define Chinese territory as including Taiwan, they take China's side. As long as they're both claiming one another's territory it's difficult to step in impartially. Suppose that both China and Taiwan renounced their claims, I bet that the UN would accept Taiwan's application straight away. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This resolution was raised by Albania, which ran Maoist political streamline at the time and PRC supported it financially. So unlawful government of Chiang Kai Shek meant Republic of China at the time this resolution passed in UN to legally prevent ROC to be recognized by this international body and the related international court judgment and replaced by PRC and thereafter till now.

In the resolution, I'm quite sure "China" refers to the people of China and the country as a political division, as distinct from other countries. It then goes on to say that the government calling itself the People's Republic of China is the representative of that political entity. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File talk:Voting res 2758.png

The map shows, amongst other things:

Western Sahara (then a Spanish colony);
Southwest Africa (now Namibia and then a SA colony);
British Honduras (now Belize and then a British colony),

all expressing a view (yes, no or abstain) on the UN "China" vote. How can this be accurate? On what basis is it claimed that these territories were regarded as having expressed any vote on the matter? They were I believe all on the UN list for de-colonisation at the time. Moreover, if these territories get counted then how come Greenland does not. In my opinion, none of them should as I don't believe this is accurate. There are likely other discrepancies too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is resoltuion 2758 compliant with UN charter?

In the UN Charter chapter II article 5 there it says a Member of the UN may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and priviliges of memberhsip by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The replacement of the ROC and the PRC in the SC was definitely a suspension of the ROC´s priviliges. And with the ROC as a member of the SC it would have not been possible to create such a recommendation, so is the GA resolution 2758 compliant with the UN charter at all? Moreover the UN charter does not say how a permanent 5 can be replaced. Of course that´s logical, because the UN never expected such a situation and if there´d be regulation to do so, the permanent 5 would be able to abolish. So the legal way must be to amend the UN charter, which uniquely defines who is a permanent 5. Chapter V, article 23 says that the permanent 5 are the US, the Soviet Union, France, UK and the Republic of China.

The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml To amend the charter needs a vote of 2/3 of the GA and ratification of the Amendment in 2/3 of the UN members - including the big 5.

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter18.shtml

=> so it is not possible to replace a permanent 5 without its agreement - unlogical!- at all. Article 5

A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

(http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter2.shtml) --Dikestopolis (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]