The following is from today's Sankei Shimbun "Seiron."
It is a must-read not only for Japanese people but also for people worldwide.
China distorts the "Albania Resolution."
Watanabe Toshio, Advisor, Takushoku University
Regarding China and Taiwan
The 26th UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, commonly known as the "Albania Resolution," was passed 50 years ago.
In recent years, China has emphasized that this resolution proves the international community recognizes "One China."
If China decides to use force against Taiwan, it would be wise to promote this as a "civil war" within "One China" and to do everything in its power to avoid the use of force being treated as an issue that should be internationally condemned.
The Albanian Resolution is a UN General Assembly resolution that states that the People's Republic of China (China), which won the Chinese Civil War and came to control the continent effectively, should have representation in the United Nations and become a permanent member of the UN Security Council in place of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which lost the civil war and moved its residence to Taiwan.
The core of the resolution is as follows:
"Recognizes the representative of the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China in the United Nations and recognizes the People's Republic of China as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; Decides to establish all the rights of the People's Republic of China and recognizes the representative of its Government as the sole legitimate representative of China in the United Nations and to expel immediately the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the places which they illegally occupy in the United Nations and all relevant organizations."
The wording is very harsh for Taiwan.
However, this resolution was intended to settle the issue of China's representation in the UN and did not recognize the "One China" principle that Taiwan is part of China.
The position of the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the Albanian resolution is, "The Republic of China (Taiwan) is a sovereign and independent democratic nation and is not subordinate to the People's Republic of China. Only the democratically elected government of Taiwan has the right to represent the 23.5 million people living in Taiwan in the international community, including the United Nations system."
A far-fetched argument means to twist something that does not match the facts or reason in a way that suits one's convenience.
A far-fetched Chinese claim
China's claim that the Albanian resolution means that the international community has recognized the "One China" principle is nothing but a far-fetched argument.
China may have intended this to be one of its three battles, a "legal war," to "win without fighting," but at this point, it has become an abuse.
In this regard, I recall something.
When the 1972 Japan-China Joint Communiqué was issued, Japan only said it "understood and respected" China's claim that Taiwan was "an inalienable part of China" and did not recognize "One China."
Kuriyama Yoichi of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Treaty Bureau, who helped draft the joint statement at the time, later gave the reason for this as follows: "If Japan were to recognize (One China), China's use of force against Taiwan would be justified under international law as part of (a civil war), and on the other hand, Japan would lose the legal basis for supporting US military action to defend Taiwan" (Kasumigaseki Kai Newsletter, October 2007), a shrewd statement that has looked to the present day.
Rather than being far-fetched, China's aggressive tactics of deciding that something exists when it is unclear whether it exists or not and pressuring the other party to accept this as definitive are unique to China.
A typical example is the 1992 Consensus, which remains the most important pillar of China's current "One China" principle.
Countering China's legal battle
The 1992 Consensus was apparently agreed upon at a meeting held in Hong Kong in October 1992 by the Straits Exchange Foundation (the Taiwanese liaison agency) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (the Chinese liaison agency).
Although China and Taiwan acknowledged "one China," the Chinese interpretation of the term appears to have meant the People's Republic of China.
In contrast, the Taiwanese interpretation meant the Republic of China.
I say "apparently" because there was no written agreement in the 1992 Consensus, and neither Lee Teng-hui, the president of Taiwan at the time, nor Koo Chen-fu, who negotiated in Hong Kong as the Taiwanese representative, acknowledged its existence.
The Chinese side maintains that this "phantom agreement" is the basis for cross-strait exchanges and that if it is not recognized, the interests of compatriots on both sides of the Strait will be greatly damaged.
The important document, the "Historical Resolution" of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 1991 Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in November 2021, clearly expresses China's stance: "We adhere to the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus and firmly oppose the activities of separatist forces seeking Taiwan independence."
Chinese legal warfare has a strong image, but it often involves China adding its interpretation to international agreements, resolutions, statements, etc., and forcibly imposing this interpretation on the international community and other countries.
Wolf Warrior Diplomacy is an aggressive diplomatic style used by Chinese diplomats.
It is an arrogant and disrespectful diplomacy that assumes that China's rise is now inevitable, that there is no way to resist it, and that there is no choice but to accept China's claims.
We must also prepare a legal war to counter China's legal warfare.
2024/11/29 in Kyoto
It is a must-read not only for Japanese people but also for people worldwide.
China distorts the "Albania Resolution."
Watanabe Toshio, Advisor, Takushoku University
Regarding China and Taiwan
The 26th UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, commonly known as the "Albania Resolution," was passed 50 years ago.
In recent years, China has emphasized that this resolution proves the international community recognizes "One China."
If China decides to use force against Taiwan, it would be wise to promote this as a "civil war" within "One China" and to do everything in its power to avoid the use of force being treated as an issue that should be internationally condemned.
The Albanian Resolution is a UN General Assembly resolution that states that the People's Republic of China (China), which won the Chinese Civil War and came to control the continent effectively, should have representation in the United Nations and become a permanent member of the UN Security Council in place of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which lost the civil war and moved its residence to Taiwan.
The core of the resolution is as follows:
"Recognizes the representative of the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China in the United Nations and recognizes the People's Republic of China as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; Decides to establish all the rights of the People's Republic of China and recognizes the representative of its Government as the sole legitimate representative of China in the United Nations and to expel immediately the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the places which they illegally occupy in the United Nations and all relevant organizations."
The wording is very harsh for Taiwan.
However, this resolution was intended to settle the issue of China's representation in the UN and did not recognize the "One China" principle that Taiwan is part of China.
The position of the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the Albanian resolution is, "The Republic of China (Taiwan) is a sovereign and independent democratic nation and is not subordinate to the People's Republic of China. Only the democratically elected government of Taiwan has the right to represent the 23.5 million people living in Taiwan in the international community, including the United Nations system."
A far-fetched argument means to twist something that does not match the facts or reason in a way that suits one's convenience.
A far-fetched Chinese claim
China's claim that the Albanian resolution means that the international community has recognized the "One China" principle is nothing but a far-fetched argument.
China may have intended this to be one of its three battles, a "legal war," to "win without fighting," but at this point, it has become an abuse.
In this regard, I recall something.
When the 1972 Japan-China Joint Communiqué was issued, Japan only said it "understood and respected" China's claim that Taiwan was "an inalienable part of China" and did not recognize "One China."
Kuriyama Yoichi of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Treaty Bureau, who helped draft the joint statement at the time, later gave the reason for this as follows: "If Japan were to recognize (One China), China's use of force against Taiwan would be justified under international law as part of (a civil war), and on the other hand, Japan would lose the legal basis for supporting US military action to defend Taiwan" (Kasumigaseki Kai Newsletter, October 2007), a shrewd statement that has looked to the present day.
Rather than being far-fetched, China's aggressive tactics of deciding that something exists when it is unclear whether it exists or not and pressuring the other party to accept this as definitive are unique to China.
A typical example is the 1992 Consensus, which remains the most important pillar of China's current "One China" principle.
Countering China's legal battle
The 1992 Consensus was apparently agreed upon at a meeting held in Hong Kong in October 1992 by the Straits Exchange Foundation (the Taiwanese liaison agency) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (the Chinese liaison agency).
Although China and Taiwan acknowledged "one China," the Chinese interpretation of the term appears to have meant the People's Republic of China.
In contrast, the Taiwanese interpretation meant the Republic of China.
I say "apparently" because there was no written agreement in the 1992 Consensus, and neither Lee Teng-hui, the president of Taiwan at the time, nor Koo Chen-fu, who negotiated in Hong Kong as the Taiwanese representative, acknowledged its existence.
The Chinese side maintains that this "phantom agreement" is the basis for cross-strait exchanges and that if it is not recognized, the interests of compatriots on both sides of the Strait will be greatly damaged.
The important document, the "Historical Resolution" of the Sixth Plenary Session of the 1991 Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in November 2021, clearly expresses China's stance: "We adhere to the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus and firmly oppose the activities of separatist forces seeking Taiwan independence."
Chinese legal warfare has a strong image, but it often involves China adding its interpretation to international agreements, resolutions, statements, etc., and forcibly imposing this interpretation on the international community and other countries.
Wolf Warrior Diplomacy is an aggressive diplomatic style used by Chinese diplomats.
It is an arrogant and disrespectful diplomacy that assumes that China's rise is now inevitable, that there is no way to resist it, and that there is no choice but to accept China's claims.
We must also prepare a legal war to counter China's legal warfare.
2024/11/29 in Kyoto
