- Tubelator AI
- >
- Videos
- >
- News & Politics
- >
- UNGA Resolution 2758 Distortion by PRC and Claims Over Taiwan Exposed
UNGA Resolution 2758 Distortion by PRC and Claims Over Taiwan Exposed
Discover how the People's Republic of China distorts Resolution 2758 from the UN General Assembly to press its claim over Taiwan. Get insights into the historical context and implications of this controversial interpretation.
Install Tubelator On Chrome
Video Summary & Chapters
No chapters for this video generated yet.
Video Transcript
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm Bonnie Glaser, and I'm Managing Director
of the Indo-Pacific Program here at the German Marshall Fund.
Thank you so much for joining for today's event, those of you
who are online and, of course, those who are here in person.
And our event today is titled Exposing the PRC's Distortion
of the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758
to press its claim over Taiwan. As many of you know in 1971 the UN General
Assembly voted to transfer the Chinese seat in the UN system from the
government of the Republic of China to the government of the People's Republic
of China and that was the sole purpose of Resolution 2758. Yet Beijing has
worked assiduously to convince the international community that Resolution 2758 determined Taiwan's
status as part of China, and Beijing insists that the resolution embedded the one China principle
in the UN system. You know, it's noteworthy that back in 1971, the PRC's Prime Minister,
Joe and Lai was acutely aware of the limitations of the resolution. And at the time in a conversation
that he had with then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Joe and Lai lamented that it was
not possible to insert a clause in the resolution regarding Taiwan's status. And he said explicitly
at the time that if Resolution 2758 passed,
the status of Taiwan is not yet decided.
So two years ago, GMF published a report.
It was one that I co-authored with Jessica Drun,
and that report explained how the PRC
is distorting UN Resolution 2758
to spread the fallacy that the United Nations
and its member states determined
and that Taiwan is part of China.
We covered a lot of ground in that report,
but we didn't address the core legal questions.
Did the language used in Resolution 2758
settle the legal status of Taiwan as Beijing claims?
Does the UN even have the power to decide
the international legal status of Taiwan?
How should the UN legal interpretations
of the resolution be understood?
And is there a legal basis for barring the meaningful participation of Taiwan in UN activities and agencies?
So to address these questions and further assess the impact and the implications of the PRC's misrepresentation of Resolution 2758,
I decided to collaborate with Professor Jacques Dalliel, sitting to my left, who is a renowned legal scholar and expert on Taiwan,
on a follow-on study which we are launching today.
Jacques is a Stephen A. Cozen Professor of Law,
Professor of Political Science,
and Director of the Center for East Asian Studies
at the University of Pennsylvania.
And I'm really thrilled that Jacques could join us today
for this important discussion.
Of course, our study is not just of academic interest,
it has important policy implications.
And therefore, I'm delighted to have with us
Mr. Mark Lambert, who is a State Department China coordinator and Deputy Assistant Secretary
in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs.
Mark has had a long and distinguished career in the Foreign Service, most of which is focused
Video Summary & Chapters
No chapters for this video generated yet.
Video Transcript
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm Bonnie Glaser, and I'm Managing Director
of the Indo-Pacific Program here at the German Marshall Fund.
Thank you so much for joining for today's event, those of you
who are online and, of course, those who are here in person.
And our event today is titled Exposing the PRC's Distortion
of the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758
to press its claim over Taiwan. As many of you know in 1971 the UN General
Assembly voted to transfer the Chinese seat in the UN system from the
government of the Republic of China to the government of the People's Republic
of China and that was the sole purpose of Resolution 2758. Yet Beijing has
worked assiduously to convince the international community that Resolution 2758 determined Taiwan's
status as part of China, and Beijing insists that the resolution embedded the one China principle
in the UN system. You know, it's noteworthy that back in 1971, the PRC's Prime Minister,
Joe and Lai was acutely aware of the limitations of the resolution. And at the time in a conversation
that he had with then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Joe and Lai lamented that it was
not possible to insert a clause in the resolution regarding Taiwan's status. And he said explicitly
at the time that if Resolution 2758 passed,
the status of Taiwan is not yet decided.
So two years ago, GMF published a report.
It was one that I co-authored with Jessica Drun,
and that report explained how the PRC
is distorting UN Resolution 2758
to spread the fallacy that the United Nations
and its member states determined
and that Taiwan is part of China.
We covered a lot of ground in that report,
but we didn't address the core legal questions.
Did the language used in Resolution 2758
settle the legal status of Taiwan as Beijing claims?
Does the UN even have the power to decide
the international legal status of Taiwan?
How should the UN legal interpretations
of the resolution be understood?
And is there a legal basis for barring the meaningful participation of Taiwan in UN activities and agencies?
So to address these questions and further assess the impact and the implications of the PRC's misrepresentation of Resolution 2758,
I decided to collaborate with Professor Jacques Dalliel, sitting to my left, who is a renowned legal scholar and expert on Taiwan,
on a follow-on study which we are launching today.
Jacques is a Stephen A. Cozen Professor of Law,
Professor of Political Science,
and Director of the Center for East Asian Studies
at the University of Pennsylvania.
And I'm really thrilled that Jacques could join us today
for this important discussion.
Of course, our study is not just of academic interest,
it has important policy implications.
And therefore, I'm delighted to have with us
Mr. Mark Lambert, who is a State Department China coordinator and Deputy Assistant Secretary
in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs.
Mark has had a long and distinguished career in the Foreign Service, most of which is focused
