Talk:China and the United Nations

message: 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)
thread_title: Huh? Someone explain this...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Misleading sentence

message: 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)
replies: text: I found a refernce . 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)
thread_title:  November 23, 1971? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there such a list on Wikipedia? 124.217.189.34 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of applications, votes on RoC membership 

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What were these various proposals? 124.217.189.34 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need citation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dead links

message: 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."
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)
thread_title: US and UN and RoC

message: More info:
* https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/09/06/2003512568
* https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and-limits-taiwans-access-united-nations
Kaihsu (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 application as Taiwan and US non-paper

message: 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)
thread_title: World Health Organization

message: 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)
thread_title:  SC Rules of Procedure, and other matters 

message: 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)
thread_title: Various edits

message: 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. 
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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Didn't the ROC have a Veto? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The United States thought that the American people wouldn’t give their backing to the organization unless it genuinely appeared like a world, rather than regional, organization. Without China it would have all been European powers besides America, and seem regional. At this time there also were not a lot of independent nations in the world, most of the world was european colonies. China was by far the largest and most powerful ally sovereign state that was not a european power, so it was an obvious choice. Japan was of course a greater power at the time, and I think in other circumstances it probably would’ve been chosen instead, but this was just after WWII and of course it had fought on the part of the Axis. The founding of the UN was very much a victory lap by the victorious allies, the world powers in the Axis club were never going to be granted power in it at the time.2601:140:8900:61D0:201F:2F26:EF03:87CF (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why China as a permanent member of the UN security council 

message: 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)
thread_title:  violently repression of indigenous population 

message: 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)
replies: text: Very ironic in retrospect seeing them say that China could only succeed with “a decent system of government” when it’s begun taking off under an entirely different system ever since then. Also of course their chauvinism towards the Indians was incredibly misguided as that’s yet another power that’s taken off.2601:140:8900:61D0:201F:2F26:EF03:87CF (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon conversation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverting 125.132.155.139's PRC-centric edit

message: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What should be in the Activity section? 

message: Also, don't use these on a talk page. — LlywelynII 14:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Substituted at 11:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: At least according to this page about PRC National Day, the Oct 1 founding date is a misnomer. There's no need for such an exact date anyway when everything else around it is on the span of years. — LlywelynII 14:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: PRC founding

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on China and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111229200941/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk:80/USAun.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAun.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006151050/http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=2483&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 to http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=2483&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128023816/http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml to http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128110323/http://www.theparliament.com/EN/News/200709/c0c87a80-4bda-4334-bbda-9ae6f6bb4e12.htm to http://www.theparliament.com/EN/News/200709/c0c87a80-4bda-4334-bbda-9ae6f6bb4e12.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502062010/http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm to http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212064553/http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title to http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on China and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAun.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2009%2F9%2F4%2Fworldupdates%2F2009-09-04T114346Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-422179-1&sec=Worldupdates
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317080146/http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/iraq_un_resolution.html to http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/iraq_un_resolution.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313111504/http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/unrestricted_warfare.html to http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/unrestricted_warfare.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109150722/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/20050812/2005081201.html to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/20050812/2005081201.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on China and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=united-nations-relief-and-rehabilitation-administration-china-office-cr.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220053609/http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/?nid=1053 to https://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/?nid=1053
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908063823/http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal41/china1.pdf to http://web.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal41/china1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on China and the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111170303/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/24/content_6425429.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/24/content_6425429.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Given that Taiwan is a seperate country, it should have it's own 'Taiwan and the UN' article comprising of the post seat change section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.167.99.17 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What about renaming it as China, Taiwan and the United Nations, for Taipei maintained the China seat between 1949 and 1971? 124.217.189.34 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reminds of the 1967 book Formosa, China and the United Nations: Formosa in the World Community and the 1996 article Taiwan, China, and the United Nations; both by Lung-chu Chen. – Kaihsu (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan should have a seperate article