One-China principle brooks no challenge and distortion

The so-called “Representative of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in the Philippines” Wallace Minn-Gan Chow recently authored a letter titled “Global Goals and Peace: Chip in with Taiwan” in several Philippine newspapers. In this opinion piece, Chow questions UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, challenges the one-China principle and even claims that “Taiwan nor the PRC is subordinate to the other.” These blatant “Taiwan independence” remarks not only mislead the general public, but also undermine regional peace and stability, and go even further to violate the Anti-Secession Law of China. They need to be strongly refuted and condemned.

Taiwan has been Chinese territory since ancient times. From 1895 to 1945, Taiwan had been occupied and colonized by Japan. In 1945, the Chinese people won the great victory of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, ending Taiwan’s half-century of humiliation under Japanese slavery. The Cairo Declaration issued by China, the United States and the United Kingdom in December 1943 states that it was the purpose of the three allies that all the territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Northeast China, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China. The Potsdam Proclamation, signed by China, the United States and the United Kingdom in July 1945 and subsequently recognized by the Soviet Union, reiterates, “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.” On Oct. 25, 1945, the Chinese government announced that it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan, and the ceremony to accept Japan’s surrender in Taiwan Province of the China war theater of the Allied powers was held in Taipei. The return of Taiwan to China constitutes an important component of the post-World War II international order.

The Taiwan question is essentially a remnant of China’s civil war. Shortly after the WWII, a civil war broke out in China, and Kuomintang (KMT) led by Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) retreated to Taiwan after its defeat. With the support of external forces, the KMT set up a regime in Taiwan and the two sides of the Taiwan Straits have fallen into a state of protracted political confrontation. On Oct. 1, 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded. The government of the PRC became the sole legal government representing the whole of China and the sole legitimate representative of China in the international community. As a natural result, the government of the PRC should enjoy and exercise China’s full sovereignty, which includes its sovereignty over Taiwan. The Taiwan question has nothing to do with democracy, health or global supply chains stability as claimed by Mr. Chow, but bears on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The “Taiwan independence” forces are using these rhetorics to cover up their hidden agenda of dividing the country. Their attempt is doomed to failure.

The one-China principle is clear cut. There is but one China in the world. Taiwan is part of China. The government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China. UNGA Resolution 2758 fully reflects and reaffirms the one-China principle. On Oct. 25, 1971, the 26th session of the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 with an overwhelming majority. It states in black and white that the General Assembly “decides to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.”

Once and for all, UNGA Resolution 2758 has resolved, politically, legally and procedurally, the issue of the representation of the whole of China, including Taiwan, at the UN and all the organizations related to it, and has made it clear that there is only one China in the world and that Taiwan is a part of China, not a country. It has also made clear that there is only one seat of China in the United Nations, and the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal representative, precluding “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.” Therefore, as part of China’s territory, Taiwan has no basis, reason or right to participate in the UN or any other international organizations where membership is exclusive to sovereign countries.

The one-China principle is a universally recognized basic norm governing international relations and a prevailing international consensus. It is the political foundation on which China establishes and develops bilateral relations with 183 countries, including the Philippines. On June 9, 1975, then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. signed in Beijing the Joint Communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the Philippines. In this communiqué, the Philippine government recognizes “the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, fully understands and respects the position of the Chinese government that there is but one China and that Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory, and decides to remove all its official representations from Taiwan within one month from the date of signature of this communiqué.” Such commitment is also enshrined in Philippine Executive Order No. 313 and Memorandum Circular No. 148. In the 49 years since the establishment of our diplomatic relations, successive Philippine governments have adhered to the one-China policy. In January this year, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. publicly reiterated that the Philippines adheres to the one-China policy, Taiwan is a province of China but the manner in which they will be brought together again is an internal matter.

“Representative” Chow also lets loose much nonsense about the South China Sea issue in an attempt to implicate the Taiwan question in the maritime disputes between China and the Philippines. Taiwan question, starkly different in nature from the maritime differences between China and the Philippines, is purely an internal affair of China. The maritime differences between China and the Philippines can be compared to a spat between neighbors, while the Taiwan question is completely domestic. Distinction between the two must not be blurred. The attempt to confuse the domestic issue with neighborhood dispute shows exactly that he not only forgets his Chinese roots, but also tries to sow discord between China and the Philippines.

*      *      *

Ji Lingpeng is spokesperson of the Chinese embassy in the Philippines.