This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
China and the United Nations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 16 dates. show |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
Removed "thereby also recognising Taiwan's status as a province of China"
The status of Taiwan as a province was never in question. The ROC administered it as a province, complete with a governor and provincial assembly (until 1998) separate from the national government in Taipei. The text of the resolution does not specifically state that Taiwan is a "province" of the PRC. Taiwan is never mentioned in the resolution. The ROC govt is referred to as " the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek ". -- Jiang 20:28, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What's wrong with this statement: "thereby implying the ROC as a renegade entity. "
This is the text from the resolution: "...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."
So yes, they were expelled. How should we convey this? -- Jiang 03:12, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wouldn't "China's seat in the United Nations" be a more accurate title here? Or are we going to add more on China's involvement in the UN? -- Jiang 04:30, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
"thereby implying the ROC as a renegade entity." is neither grammatical nor particularly to the point. What the resolution "implied" is surely a matter of opinion. Was the expression "renegade entity" actually used?
On "expelled", this was a rhetorical flourish in the resolution, but it wasn't actually what happened. China wasn't expelled from the UN - all that happened was that the credentials to represent China were transferred from the ROC to the PRC.
Dr Adam Carr 04:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sure, "China" wasn't expelled, but the ROC delegation (ie "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek") was. It wasn't merely the credentials to represent China...why didnt the ROC stay as a regular member?
Maybe "renegade entity" is not the right term, but it needs to be somehow conveyed that they were deemed illegitimate by the endorsement of the PRC as the sole Chinese government. -- Jiang 04:59, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't see how the resolution can be simply dismissed as simple "rhetoric". If it says "expelled" then how was the ROC not expelled? Were they given x hrs to clear their offices/desks or did they voluntarily quit? Were they given the option to stay as a regular member? What happened? -- Jiang 01:29, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why could there not be two representatives for China? The Republic of China and People's Republic of China could both be considered separate states. Was remaining as a non-SC member Republic of China permissible? Could the ROC stay as a member state not representing China (despite having China in its official name)?
The ROC (at least before Chen Shui-bian) never claimed there to be a state of Taiwan. Read the 1998 resolution posted on the page. It claims that the Republic of China is a sovereign state, deserving membership. They were no longer trying to be the sole respresntative for "China". I think the resolution under Chen state "Republic of China (Taiwan)" (with the Taiwan in perenthisis, as is displayed on their government websites).
There are countless overlapping territorial claims in the world. This doesnt stop these states from becoming UN members. -- Jiang 04:08, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I can't answer a question that non-specific.
Or they could still enter as the ROC, but by renouncing their claim to the mainland. The ROC could simply by Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, etc. A government/state with China in its name does not have to claim the entire entity known as China. Why is changing the name necessary? What about the two Koreas? Two Gernamys? Two Yemens? Why can there not be two Chinas?
They dont have to recognize the ROC's claim over all China if the ROC doesnt force them to. (De facto) China is not one country. The PRC and ROC function as separate countries. They would be officially recognized as such (like the 2 Koreas) if they both tolerted it. The thing is that they dont.
This is all besides the point. Did the resolution expel the ROC? What do the "experts" think? Research? -- Jiang 21:47, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh my! Dont bang too hard! My question about the 2 Koreas hasn't been answered yet. Where are the "experts"? -- Jiang
The other difference is that both the two Koreas and the two Germanys were (a) created at the same time, and (b) admitted to the UN at the same time. Both divisions arose from Soviet occupations of parts of those countries at the end of WW2, so neither half had ever administered the territory of the other half (except briefly during the mobile phases of the Korean War). The BRD and DDR were admitted to the UN together, as were the ROK and the DPRK, so they had to accept this if they wanted to be admitted. This is very different to the situation with the ROC and the PRC, in which the ROK had at one time governed the whole of China and had represented the whole of China at the UN. This is why the rival claims of sovereignty are so absolute and irreconcilable. Adam 06:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
OK Jiang this is going to be my last attempt to explain this to you:
The official position of both Beijing and Taipei is that:
The only point on which they disagree is which of them is the single legitimate government of China.
It is true that the Taipei government no longer asserts that it is the government of the whole of China, and says that it wants to join the UN. But it knows perfectly well that this makes no sense.
Until the Taipei government formally renounces its claim to be the government of China, and declares that Taiwan (under whatever name) is an independent country, it cannot, even in theory, join the UN. A place which is not a country, and which does not even claim to be a country, cannot join the UN.
That is my last comment on this subject. Adam 07:16, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I quote myself: Or they could still enter as the ROC, but by renouncing their claim to the mainland. The ROC could simply by Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, etc. A government/state with China in its name does not have to claim the entire entity known as China. Why is changing the name necessary?
Although either ignoring or renouncing claims by both parties is necessary, it makes little sense to have to change the name of the country. The name is irrelevant. The Republic of China is already an independent country. There is no need to declare another one.
Somehow, I feel this has long become a politcal "debate". I guess it is. -- Jiang 07:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-Technically speaking, since Taiwan is part of China, therefore it continues to stay in the international organization of UN under the name of People's Republic of China. Just like all other cases as the case of UN, PRC represents China and Taiwan is an inalienable territory of People's Republic of China.
Historically, since Japan nullified Treaty of Taipei, Taiwan's status becomes somewhat unclear. However, if there is concensus that general election brings ROC sovereignty upon Taiwan then everything is pretty much finalized with the Taiwan question and the PRC statement and PRC scenario apply.
It is not clear what the "whole of China" means. Does this include Tibet or outer Mongolia, both of which the ROC claims? What specificially is the ROC to renounce? Just renounce its sovereignty over Xinjiang and therefore satisfy this condition? Using the term Mainland China makes it much more precise. -- Jiang 19:24, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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."
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)
However, establishing a province with legal sovereignty is norm whereas the situation here is unusual. Though the sentence does not explicitly imply the legality, for a lay person or outstander to read the article, one would easily assume the sovereignty had already established in 1949. Thus, I tried to fix this potential POV by using Taiwan to replace the province of Taiwan. Yes, the Provincial Government has/had jurisdiction over the island as a occupation force, not as a de jure sovereignty authority. I still believe this somehow has to be modified so that the nuance would be addressed. Mababa 04:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is surely a moot question. I will accept the current version of text as people interested in Taiwan question probably would have some extent of exposure of the debate. However, I still recommend to remove the province and use Taiwan directly to avoid the potential sovereignty POV. Please consider my suggestion and make your decision on what to do about it. If you want me to remove the NPOV sign myself, just let me know. I apologize for raising a debate seemed to be frivolous. I still stand by my suggestion though. Mababa 04:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here's the problem with saying that Taiwan was the de-jure part of Japan untill 1952. One could use this argument to imply that North and South Korea are de-jure parts of Japan untill 1951. Tell that to the Koreans and see how they respond. Allentchang 17:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
Out of curiosity, by what mechanism was the ROC UN delegation excluded from the vote that essentially expelled them from the UN? On a practial level, I can see why it would be silly to allow them a veto over the acceptance of their own credentials -- obviously they would never vote for it. But does the UN charter have a rule on the subjet? -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But doesn't this set a precedent whereby the majority of the General Assembly can potentially "overrule" the Security Council by simply "recognizing" alternative governments of countries on the Security Council if they don't agree with the General Assembly? -- Spoon! ( talk) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have cited 1971 Yearbook of UN: In a Security Council meeting on Feb. 9, 1971, Somalia objected to the credentials of the representative of Republic of China as China representation, and ROC and the United States responded that the question of China's representation should not be dealt with in the Security Council.
Thus the matter was not discussed further in the Security Council. If you read the 1971 Yearbook, you will notice neither USA nor ROC tried to steer the issue from General Assembly back to Security Council in 1971. Could they have done that? I think an expert opinion would help.
IIUC, the power of Security Council, and veto, is limited to matters related to security and membership, etc. It is not unlimited. I'd think because the issue is raised as a matter of credential, not admission of new members, it bypassed the Security Council. ROC did raise another issue in the General Assembly, that expulsion of a member state would require 2/3 vote according the UN Charter, but that proposal was voted down. Since there is no separate body that governs interpretation of UN Charter, the General Assembly interpreted itself. It's all politics :-) Happyseeu ( talk) 20:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph currently needs citations. As for the US State Department making some sort of "official" statement about how it does not consider Taiwan part of the PRC, I must point out that it strikes me as highly unlikely, and barring quality citations, something that should be removed soon. The reason is that (1) something that is so sensitive would inevitably gets parsed through an elaborate word dance, and that (2) if true, I would expect massive protests by the PRC, none of which has made the news. As a matter of fact, the US has recently criticized the Chen Shui-bian regime for stirring things up and trying to alter the "status quo." Ngchen 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
This clearly was not the case from the debates on 2758.
Roadrunner ( talk) 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read 1971 Yearbook of the United Nations, you will see various proposals were put forth by allies of ROC, but none of those passed. Whether some different maneuver would have succeeded for dual representation would be difficult to know for sure. Chiang Kai-Shek's withdrawal from the UN was just before Resolution 2758 was voted on, when it was clear that it would pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyseeu ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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." [1]
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)
More info:
Kaihsu ( talk) 09:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Recently this
was changed to
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)
Article 27 of the UN Charter states:
If the third clause was worded that way before 1971 then I presume it acted as a conflict of interest block on the ROC exercising a veto itself. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
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? No News ! 05:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added it to the article with reference. At least two reasons:
As an analogy, China both won the qualification to play at the table, and help made the rules for the table. Happyseeu ( talk) 18:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.-- = ? 06:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree with the splitting. Both RoC @ UN and PRC @ UN are essential for this article. And, I think the biggest problem of this article is not the membership issue but the lack of valuable information about China's actual positions or actions at UN. Most of the article now focuses on the membership issue rather than real helpful contents. I think the membership issue is addressed too much and efforts should be made about some 'real contents'. I myself will try to contribute some. Chinacxt ( talk) 06:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Taiwan post 1971 should have a seperate article as it isn't China anymore. It doesn't make sense to discuss Taiwan and the UN in an article about China and the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.167.99.17 ( talk) 17:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Either split Taiwan from 1972, or rename the article to China, Taiwan and the United Nations. 124.217.189.34 ( talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Point taken. I'll wait for people that added "Activity" section to explain how it differs from "History" section. Happyseeu ( talk) 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Also, don't use these on a talk page. — LlywelynII 14:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:China and the United Nations/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The article contains pretty much all of the required sections, it just needs to be polished up and expanded. -- Danaman5 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=united-nations-relief-and-rehabilitation-administration-china-office-cr.xmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article has details on recent behaviours that I believe are pertinent to this article. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Kristine Lee is an associate fellow in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Center for a New American Security.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
China and the United Nations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 16 dates. show |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
Removed "thereby also recognising Taiwan's status as a province of China"
The status of Taiwan as a province was never in question. The ROC administered it as a province, complete with a governor and provincial assembly (until 1998) separate from the national government in Taipei. The text of the resolution does not specifically state that Taiwan is a "province" of the PRC. Taiwan is never mentioned in the resolution. The ROC govt is referred to as " the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek ". -- Jiang 20:28, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What's wrong with this statement: "thereby implying the ROC as a renegade entity. "
This is the text from the resolution: "...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."
So yes, they were expelled. How should we convey this? -- Jiang 03:12, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wouldn't "China's seat in the United Nations" be a more accurate title here? Or are we going to add more on China's involvement in the UN? -- Jiang 04:30, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
"thereby implying the ROC as a renegade entity." is neither grammatical nor particularly to the point. What the resolution "implied" is surely a matter of opinion. Was the expression "renegade entity" actually used?
On "expelled", this was a rhetorical flourish in the resolution, but it wasn't actually what happened. China wasn't expelled from the UN - all that happened was that the credentials to represent China were transferred from the ROC to the PRC.
Dr Adam Carr 04:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sure, "China" wasn't expelled, but the ROC delegation (ie "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek") was. It wasn't merely the credentials to represent China...why didnt the ROC stay as a regular member?
Maybe "renegade entity" is not the right term, but it needs to be somehow conveyed that they were deemed illegitimate by the endorsement of the PRC as the sole Chinese government. -- Jiang 04:59, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't see how the resolution can be simply dismissed as simple "rhetoric". If it says "expelled" then how was the ROC not expelled? Were they given x hrs to clear their offices/desks or did they voluntarily quit? Were they given the option to stay as a regular member? What happened? -- Jiang 01:29, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Why could there not be two representatives for China? The Republic of China and People's Republic of China could both be considered separate states. Was remaining as a non-SC member Republic of China permissible? Could the ROC stay as a member state not representing China (despite having China in its official name)?
The ROC (at least before Chen Shui-bian) never claimed there to be a state of Taiwan. Read the 1998 resolution posted on the page. It claims that the Republic of China is a sovereign state, deserving membership. They were no longer trying to be the sole respresntative for "China". I think the resolution under Chen state "Republic of China (Taiwan)" (with the Taiwan in perenthisis, as is displayed on their government websites).
There are countless overlapping territorial claims in the world. This doesnt stop these states from becoming UN members. -- Jiang 04:08, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I can't answer a question that non-specific.
Or they could still enter as the ROC, but by renouncing their claim to the mainland. The ROC could simply by Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, etc. A government/state with China in its name does not have to claim the entire entity known as China. Why is changing the name necessary? What about the two Koreas? Two Gernamys? Two Yemens? Why can there not be two Chinas?
They dont have to recognize the ROC's claim over all China if the ROC doesnt force them to. (De facto) China is not one country. The PRC and ROC function as separate countries. They would be officially recognized as such (like the 2 Koreas) if they both tolerted it. The thing is that they dont.
This is all besides the point. Did the resolution expel the ROC? What do the "experts" think? Research? -- Jiang 21:47, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh my! Dont bang too hard! My question about the 2 Koreas hasn't been answered yet. Where are the "experts"? -- Jiang
The other difference is that both the two Koreas and the two Germanys were (a) created at the same time, and (b) admitted to the UN at the same time. Both divisions arose from Soviet occupations of parts of those countries at the end of WW2, so neither half had ever administered the territory of the other half (except briefly during the mobile phases of the Korean War). The BRD and DDR were admitted to the UN together, as were the ROK and the DPRK, so they had to accept this if they wanted to be admitted. This is very different to the situation with the ROC and the PRC, in which the ROK had at one time governed the whole of China and had represented the whole of China at the UN. This is why the rival claims of sovereignty are so absolute and irreconcilable. Adam 06:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
OK Jiang this is going to be my last attempt to explain this to you:
The official position of both Beijing and Taipei is that:
The only point on which they disagree is which of them is the single legitimate government of China.
It is true that the Taipei government no longer asserts that it is the government of the whole of China, and says that it wants to join the UN. But it knows perfectly well that this makes no sense.
Until the Taipei government formally renounces its claim to be the government of China, and declares that Taiwan (under whatever name) is an independent country, it cannot, even in theory, join the UN. A place which is not a country, and which does not even claim to be a country, cannot join the UN.
That is my last comment on this subject. Adam 07:16, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I quote myself: Or they could still enter as the ROC, but by renouncing their claim to the mainland. The ROC could simply by Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, etc. A government/state with China in its name does not have to claim the entire entity known as China. Why is changing the name necessary?
Although either ignoring or renouncing claims by both parties is necessary, it makes little sense to have to change the name of the country. The name is irrelevant. The Republic of China is already an independent country. There is no need to declare another one.
Somehow, I feel this has long become a politcal "debate". I guess it is. -- Jiang 07:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-Technically speaking, since Taiwan is part of China, therefore it continues to stay in the international organization of UN under the name of People's Republic of China. Just like all other cases as the case of UN, PRC represents China and Taiwan is an inalienable territory of People's Republic of China.
Historically, since Japan nullified Treaty of Taipei, Taiwan's status becomes somewhat unclear. However, if there is concensus that general election brings ROC sovereignty upon Taiwan then everything is pretty much finalized with the Taiwan question and the PRC statement and PRC scenario apply.
It is not clear what the "whole of China" means. Does this include Tibet or outer Mongolia, both of which the ROC claims? What specificially is the ROC to renounce? Just renounce its sovereignty over Xinjiang and therefore satisfy this condition? Using the term Mainland China makes it much more precise. -- Jiang 19:24, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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."
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)
However, establishing a province with legal sovereignty is norm whereas the situation here is unusual. Though the sentence does not explicitly imply the legality, for a lay person or outstander to read the article, one would easily assume the sovereignty had already established in 1949. Thus, I tried to fix this potential POV by using Taiwan to replace the province of Taiwan. Yes, the Provincial Government has/had jurisdiction over the island as a occupation force, not as a de jure sovereignty authority. I still believe this somehow has to be modified so that the nuance would be addressed. Mababa 04:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is surely a moot question. I will accept the current version of text as people interested in Taiwan question probably would have some extent of exposure of the debate. However, I still recommend to remove the province and use Taiwan directly to avoid the potential sovereignty POV. Please consider my suggestion and make your decision on what to do about it. If you want me to remove the NPOV sign myself, just let me know. I apologize for raising a debate seemed to be frivolous. I still stand by my suggestion though. Mababa 04:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here's the problem with saying that Taiwan was the de-jure part of Japan untill 1952. One could use this argument to imply that North and South Korea are de-jure parts of Japan untill 1951. Tell that to the Koreans and see how they respond. Allentchang 17:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
Out of curiosity, by what mechanism was the ROC UN delegation excluded from the vote that essentially expelled them from the UN? On a practial level, I can see why it would be silly to allow them a veto over the acceptance of their own credentials -- obviously they would never vote for it. But does the UN charter have a rule on the subjet? -- Jfruh ( talk) 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But doesn't this set a precedent whereby the majority of the General Assembly can potentially "overrule" the Security Council by simply "recognizing" alternative governments of countries on the Security Council if they don't agree with the General Assembly? -- Spoon! ( talk) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I have cited 1971 Yearbook of UN: In a Security Council meeting on Feb. 9, 1971, Somalia objected to the credentials of the representative of Republic of China as China representation, and ROC and the United States responded that the question of China's representation should not be dealt with in the Security Council.
Thus the matter was not discussed further in the Security Council. If you read the 1971 Yearbook, you will notice neither USA nor ROC tried to steer the issue from General Assembly back to Security Council in 1971. Could they have done that? I think an expert opinion would help.
IIUC, the power of Security Council, and veto, is limited to matters related to security and membership, etc. It is not unlimited. I'd think because the issue is raised as a matter of credential, not admission of new members, it bypassed the Security Council. ROC did raise another issue in the General Assembly, that expulsion of a member state would require 2/3 vote according the UN Charter, but that proposal was voted down. Since there is no separate body that governs interpretation of UN Charter, the General Assembly interpreted itself. It's all politics :-) Happyseeu ( talk) 20:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph currently needs citations. As for the US State Department making some sort of "official" statement about how it does not consider Taiwan part of the PRC, I must point out that it strikes me as highly unlikely, and barring quality citations, something that should be removed soon. The reason is that (1) something that is so sensitive would inevitably gets parsed through an elaborate word dance, and that (2) if true, I would expect massive protests by the PRC, none of which has made the news. As a matter of fact, the US has recently criticized the Chen Shui-bian regime for stirring things up and trying to alter the "status quo." Ngchen 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
This clearly was not the case from the debates on 2758.
Roadrunner ( talk) 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read 1971 Yearbook of the United Nations, you will see various proposals were put forth by allies of ROC, but none of those passed. Whether some different maneuver would have succeeded for dual representation would be difficult to know for sure. Chiang Kai-Shek's withdrawal from the UN was just before Resolution 2758 was voted on, when it was clear that it would pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyseeu ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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." [1]
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)
More info:
Kaihsu ( talk) 09:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Recently this
was changed to
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)
Article 27 of the UN Charter states:
If the third clause was worded that way before 1971 then I presume it acted as a conflict of interest block on the ROC exercising a veto itself. Timrollpickering ( talk) 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
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? No News ! 05:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've added it to the article with reference. At least two reasons:
As an analogy, China both won the qualification to play at the table, and help made the rules for the table. Happyseeu ( talk) 18:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.-- = ? 06:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree with the splitting. Both RoC @ UN and PRC @ UN are essential for this article. And, I think the biggest problem of this article is not the membership issue but the lack of valuable information about China's actual positions or actions at UN. Most of the article now focuses on the membership issue rather than real helpful contents. I think the membership issue is addressed too much and efforts should be made about some 'real contents'. I myself will try to contribute some. Chinacxt ( talk) 06:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Taiwan post 1971 should have a seperate article as it isn't China anymore. It doesn't make sense to discuss Taiwan and the UN in an article about China and the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.167.99.17 ( talk) 17:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Either split Taiwan from 1972, or rename the article to China, Taiwan and the United Nations. 124.217.189.34 ( talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Point taken. I'll wait for people that added "Activity" section to explain how it differs from "History" section. Happyseeu ( talk) 20:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Also, don't use these on a talk page. — LlywelynII 14:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:China and the United Nations/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The article contains pretty much all of the required sections, it just needs to be polished up and expanded. -- Danaman5 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=united-nations-relief-and-rehabilitation-administration-china-office-cr.xmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article has details on recent behaviours that I believe are pertinent to this article. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Kristine Lee is an associate fellow in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Center for a New American Security.