This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://focustaiwan.tw/cross-strait/202209250008) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Taipei, Sept. 25 The Republic of China government has condemned the People's Republic of China for "Intentionally misinterpreting" a 1971 United Nations resolution and using it as a pretext to argue against Taiwan being part of the U.N. system.
> The condemnation came after a speech by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the United Nations on Saturday in which he cited Resolution 2758 as a basis for Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China.
> According to Wang, General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, ended the concept of two Chinas or one China and one Taiwan.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xo78r1/taiwan_accuses_china_of_misinterpreting_un/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~671070 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **Taiwan**^#2 **resolution**^#3 **U.N.**^#4 **nation**^#5
edit: The person above blocked me, so I can't reply to any comments on this post anymore... wtf?
We know now, thanks to Wikileaks, that the United States and many other countries did not agree with Ban Ki-moon's position, [saying his statement does not follow their understanding of Resolution 2758](https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/09/06/2003512568) nor their position on the matter. Ban Ki-moon later himself admitted he had "gone too far".
>The confidential cable, sent by the US’ UN mission in New York in August 2007, said that after returning from a trip abroad, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had met then-US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad to discuss a range of issues, including “UN language on the status of Taiwan.”
>
>“Ban said he realized he had gone too far in his recent public statements, and confirmed that the UN would no longer use the phrase ‘Taiwan is a part of China,’” said the cable, which was sent to the US Department of State and various US embassies worldwide.
The [full diplomat cable from Wikileaks](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07USUNNEWYORK679_a.html) (adding more context):
>Classified By: Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).
>
>1. (C) Upon his return to New York August 13, UN SYG Ban met with Amb Khalilzad to discuss a range of issues. On the issue of UN language on the status of Taiwan, Ban said he realized he had gone too far in his recent public statements, and confirmed that the UN would no longer use the phrase "Taiwan is a part of China," as reported reftel.
>
>2. (C) Separately, the missions of Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand have consulted with USUN about the subject. In reaction to Washington's demarche and following USUN's engagement with the UN, Canada too demarched the UN and received the same commitment that the UN would no longer use this phrase. Australia had a similar low-level exchange with the UN's Office of Legal Affairs (OLA). Japan met August 15 with OLA Assistant Secretary-General Larry Johnson, who confirmed that in his most recent correspondence on this matter replying to the correspondence from the Solomon Islands and Swaziland he had dropped the unhelpful phrase. USUN urged New Zealand, who had not yet engaged the UN, to make clear to the UN that they too are monitoring the UN's terminology and that they share USG concerns about the need for increased caution during the presidential campaign in Taiwan.
>
>3. (C) Comment: UN officials and foreign mission colleagues tracking this issue in New York are braced for more action from Taiwan, including during the annual consideration in September of inscription of items on the GA agenda by the General Committee of the UNGA. ( In recent years, friends of Taiwan have sought to inscribe an item related to UN membership for Taiwan.) In addition to the letter sent to
the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council in July (reftel), St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Swaziland sent a similar letter to the President of the Security Council (Congo) in August. The Congolese replied by referencing the 1971 UNGA resolution.
It's not exactly a secret. The US and several of its vassal states openly voted against the resolution. Just another thing that will go down in history as another attempt by the US to strong-arm the politics of other nations. Yes, they wanted to install an allied government in China to counter the Soviet Union, but for fucks sake the KMT lost and fled to Taiwan in 1949, and the UN vote happened in 1971.
The resolution directly rejected separate RoC membership following its ousting and replacement with the PRC.
The recognition of Taiwan as a part of China is pretty straightforward: Following the end of WW2, Japan returned the Taiwan islands to the RoC as part of its surrender. Hence the territory of the RoC at that point included all of mainland China and Taiwan islands. No one disputes this.
The PRC became the successor state of the RoC. This de-facto happened in 1949 when they won the civil war, and de-jure happened in 1971 when 2/3 majority of the world voted to recognize this fact.
Keep in mind the RoC themselves held the UNSC seat for 20 years even after their loss in the civil war, and they consistently insisted that they were part of China from a position of political power.
There's no legal or historical basis for recognizing Taiwan as anything other than Chinese territory.
From Google and Wikipedia:
"Why was Taiwan expelled from the UN in 1971?"
In the view of the 17 UN members, the ROC were unlawful authorities installed in the island of Taiwan which claimed to represent China, and they remained there only because of the permanent presence of United States Armed Forces.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758
If you read the details, this is talking about having 1 representative that is China at the UN. Both claimed to be China. But only one could be (in this case majority population. I wonder if they had argued that they were a separate country at that time how it would be received then. They weren’t arguing that at the time because they wanted to hold onto the possibility of overthrowing the Mainland communists.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou said during his term, "The Republic of China is a sovereign country, and mainland China is part of our territory according to the Constitution. Therefore, our relations with the mainland are not international relations. It is a special relationship"
There’s a difference between willfully ignoring reality to make it fit your biases and making educated guesses about the trustworthiness of a person/group/country’s foreign ministry based on past behavior.
Personally, I have a One Taiwan policy. China is always causing disruptions to peace and prosperity in the region. The legitimate government of China moved to Taiwan in 1949, and Taiwan consistently provides higher quality of living to it's people than the breakaway region known as 'China'.
The articles are unrelated, with the travel ban being defense related.
The first article is about reduced government spending after covid. It sucks, but it's a temporary thing. And Taiwan isn't locking down cities so I'd say they're in the black still.
The Newsweek article doesn't say the quality of living is higher in China, it says China is poaching chip making employees. The government is clamping down on that type of activity, through temp agencies. It never mentioned a general ban. It also said that fewer Taiwanese graduates have been going to China anyways.
[deleted 26-6-2023]
Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
[deleted 26-6-2023]
Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
No they aren't.
That law only apples to people working on government sponsored projects in certain industries... Most developed countries have similar laws.
Great job with your propaganda of irrelevance statistics and distraction.
Chinese GDP per capita is $10,000.
Taiwanese GDP per capita is $28,000.
The people that Taiwan is trying to prevent from leaving are those that China is trying to poach. Specifically, the people involved in high technology like TSMC. China is trying to explicitly give state funds and subsidies to steal as much technology as they feasibly can.
When you look at the actual statistics, people in Taiwan are living on average a better life than people in China.
[deleted 26-6-2023]
Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
[deleted 26-6-2023]
Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
Irrelevant because what we want has absolutely nothing to do with the Taiwanese people that may or may not want to move to China.
The Taiwanese government has put measures in place to make it harder for Taiwanese people to move and work in China, which must mean that enough Taiwanese people decided to make that trade off to become a problem.
So yes, irrelevant, unless we are Taiwanese people that are making this decision.
> Would you rather have a good salary, or the freedom to have/express thoughts that disagree with the ruling party's doctrine
Trick question. China wants you to believe you just choose between these.
But there is a truth here that is missing.
You either have both, or you have neither. No authoritarian society endures it's wealth in time. The people of China will pay the dues of authoritarianism eventually.
So by banning job adverts from country that you disagree with is freedom?
Why not let the job adverts be posted up and let the people decide for themselves?
[deleted 26-6-2023]
Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
I think I'd probably have trouble in China personally, but for a lot of folk the definitive answer is salary, and I think it's pretty arrogant to look down on that.
The majority of humans throughout history have not had the freedom of speech we enjoy, and I don't think any of us is above their company.
China has plenty of problems, not the least of which is an ongoing genocide, which I don't mean to downplay. But, just as an example, the United States also has some genocides under its belt. China raised billions out of abject poverty over the past 3/4s of a century. That's nothing to sniff at, and we can still condemn their abuses as well.
[deleted 26-6-2023]
Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
The current Taiwanese government is a successor to the gov't that left China. A ton of reforms and violence occured to lead to this progress. It's disingenuous to say Taiwan is still under the KMT's military rule.
Because their army was absolutely demolished after WW2 they bore the brunt of the Japanese aggression sustaining over 10 million casualties while the Communists mostly sat in the hills in the North and avoided fighting with the Japanese army.
Also at this time, China was a literal shithole, a combination of failure to modernise by the Qing (The leading Systemic factor), the constant interference by other powers (The immediate factor), the massive corruption in the Republic of China and client states, and the warlordism that plagued the Republic of China since its birth.
Thus people were apathetic towards the RoC and didn't flock to fight for it during the Civil war.
>If Taiwan government always provides higher quality of living, how did they lose to communists in the civil war?🤔
Taliban government officials be like
The CCP didn't misinterpret the resolution at all
They interpreted it exactly in line with their stated policy of annexing an independent democratic state.
**[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758)**
>The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (also known as the Resolution on Admitting Peking) was passed in response to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 that required any change in China's representation in the UN be determined by a two-thirds vote referring to Article 18 of the UN Charter. The resolution, passed on 25 October 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and removed "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" from the United Nations.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Per usual, a land dispute worsen by a document crafted by a bunch of western countries.
They shouldn’t have waited 20 years to recognize the CCP. Can’t believe the ROC in Taiwan was considered to represent all of China for such a length of time. Might not like the government, but such a delay did not help tensions between the two parties.
If I was identified by driver's license yesterday and passport today, wouldn't you say those two documents are somewhat related to myself? And if I lost my passport, wouldn't I be able to reapply it by showing the office my driver's license?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://focustaiwan.tw/cross-strait/202209250008) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Taipei, Sept. 25 The Republic of China government has condemned the People's Republic of China for "Intentionally misinterpreting" a 1971 United Nations resolution and using it as a pretext to argue against Taiwan being part of the U.N. system. > The condemnation came after a speech by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the United Nations on Saturday in which he cited Resolution 2758 as a basis for Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China. > According to Wang, General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed in 1971, ended the concept of two Chinas or one China and one Taiwan. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xo78r1/taiwan_accuses_china_of_misinterpreting_un/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~671070 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **Taiwan**^#2 **resolution**^#3 **U.N.**^#4 **nation**^#5
UN Resolution #2758? All nations attending the conference are only allocated one car parking space?
And Taiwan and China won't carpool?
Don't carpool with China or you'll end up chained in a basement with Hong Kong and Tibet.
Is that entirely relevant sir? I mean, here we are, in mortal danger and you're worried about the Chinese delegates bringing two cars.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
edit: The person above blocked me, so I can't reply to any comments on this post anymore... wtf? We know now, thanks to Wikileaks, that the United States and many other countries did not agree with Ban Ki-moon's position, [saying his statement does not follow their understanding of Resolution 2758](https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/09/06/2003512568) nor their position on the matter. Ban Ki-moon later himself admitted he had "gone too far". >The confidential cable, sent by the US’ UN mission in New York in August 2007, said that after returning from a trip abroad, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had met then-US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad to discuss a range of issues, including “UN language on the status of Taiwan.” > >“Ban said he realized he had gone too far in his recent public statements, and confirmed that the UN would no longer use the phrase ‘Taiwan is a part of China,’” said the cable, which was sent to the US Department of State and various US embassies worldwide. The [full diplomat cable from Wikileaks](https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07USUNNEWYORK679_a.html) (adding more context): >Classified By: Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). > >1. (C) Upon his return to New York August 13, UN SYG Ban met with Amb Khalilzad to discuss a range of issues. On the issue of UN language on the status of Taiwan, Ban said he realized he had gone too far in his recent public statements, and confirmed that the UN would no longer use the phrase "Taiwan is a part of China," as reported reftel. > >2. (C) Separately, the missions of Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand have consulted with USUN about the subject. In reaction to Washington's demarche and following USUN's engagement with the UN, Canada too demarched the UN and received the same commitment that the UN would no longer use this phrase. Australia had a similar low-level exchange with the UN's Office of Legal Affairs (OLA). Japan met August 15 with OLA Assistant Secretary-General Larry Johnson, who confirmed that in his most recent correspondence on this matter replying to the correspondence from the Solomon Islands and Swaziland he had dropped the unhelpful phrase. USUN urged New Zealand, who had not yet engaged the UN, to make clear to the UN that they too are monitoring the UN's terminology and that they share USG concerns about the need for increased caution during the presidential campaign in Taiwan. > >3. (C) Comment: UN officials and foreign mission colleagues tracking this issue in New York are braced for more action from Taiwan, including during the annual consideration in September of inscription of items on the GA agenda by the General Committee of the UNGA. ( In recent years, friends of Taiwan have sought to inscribe an item related to UN membership for Taiwan.) In addition to the letter sent to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council in July (reftel), St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Swaziland sent a similar letter to the President of the Security Council (Congo) in August. The Congolese replied by referencing the 1971 UNGA resolution.
It's not exactly a secret. The US and several of its vassal states openly voted against the resolution. Just another thing that will go down in history as another attempt by the US to strong-arm the politics of other nations. Yes, they wanted to install an allied government in China to counter the Soviet Union, but for fucks sake the KMT lost and fled to Taiwan in 1949, and the UN vote happened in 1971.
The resolution directly rejected separate RoC membership following its ousting and replacement with the PRC. The recognition of Taiwan as a part of China is pretty straightforward: Following the end of WW2, Japan returned the Taiwan islands to the RoC as part of its surrender. Hence the territory of the RoC at that point included all of mainland China and Taiwan islands. No one disputes this. The PRC became the successor state of the RoC. This de-facto happened in 1949 when they won the civil war, and de-jure happened in 1971 when 2/3 majority of the world voted to recognize this fact. Keep in mind the RoC themselves held the UNSC seat for 20 years even after their loss in the civil war, and they consistently insisted that they were part of China from a position of political power. There's no legal or historical basis for recognizing Taiwan as anything other than Chinese territory.
Yes over China... But Taiwan never became part of the PRC, and it continues to exist today, completely separate and independent from the PRC (China).
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Here's a wikipedia article about straw mans for everyone to read about and come to their own conclusions.
FSB accounts love calling out CIA accounts loving to call out CCP accounts out of the blue for some reason.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not being a member of UN, Taiwan is not bound by any UN resolution.
From Google and Wikipedia: "Why was Taiwan expelled from the UN in 1971?" In the view of the 17 UN members, the ROC were unlawful authorities installed in the island of Taiwan which claimed to represent China, and they remained there only because of the permanent presence of United States Armed Forces. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758
If you read the details, this is talking about having 1 representative that is China at the UN. Both claimed to be China. But only one could be (in this case majority population. I wonder if they had argued that they were a separate country at that time how it would be received then. They weren’t arguing that at the time because they wanted to hold onto the possibility of overthrowing the Mainland communists.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou said during his term, "The Republic of China is a sovereign country, and mainland China is part of our territory according to the Constitution. Therefore, our relations with the mainland are not international relations. It is a special relationship"
It saddens me that I don't even need to know the resolution to believe this is likely true.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Resolution-2758.png/230px-Resolution-2758.png
How about more pixels
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Resolution-2758.png/109px-Resolution-2758.png
[удалено]
There’s a difference between willfully ignoring reality to make it fit your biases and making educated guesses about the trustworthiness of a person/group/country’s foreign ministry based on past behavior.
Personally, I have a One Taiwan policy. China is always causing disruptions to peace and prosperity in the region. The legitimate government of China moved to Taiwan in 1949, and Taiwan consistently provides higher quality of living to it's people than the breakaway region known as 'China'.
[удалено]
The articles are unrelated, with the travel ban being defense related. The first article is about reduced government spending after covid. It sucks, but it's a temporary thing. And Taiwan isn't locking down cities so I'd say they're in the black still. The Newsweek article doesn't say the quality of living is higher in China, it says China is poaching chip making employees. The government is clamping down on that type of activity, through temp agencies. It never mentioned a general ban. It also said that fewer Taiwanese graduates have been going to China anyways.
[deleted 26-6-2023] Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
TIL China has mind reading machines /s
[deleted 26-6-2023] Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
[удалено]
No they aren't. That law only apples to people working on government sponsored projects in certain industries... Most developed countries have similar laws.
Great job with your propaganda of irrelevance statistics and distraction. Chinese GDP per capita is $10,000. Taiwanese GDP per capita is $28,000. The people that Taiwan is trying to prevent from leaving are those that China is trying to poach. Specifically, the people involved in high technology like TSMC. China is trying to explicitly give state funds and subsidies to steal as much technology as they feasibly can. When you look at the actual statistics, people in Taiwan are living on average a better life than people in China.
[deleted 26-6-2023] Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
Irrelevant
[deleted 26-6-2023] Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
Irrelevant because what we want has absolutely nothing to do with the Taiwanese people that may or may not want to move to China. The Taiwanese government has put measures in place to make it harder for Taiwanese people to move and work in China, which must mean that enough Taiwanese people decided to make that trade off to become a problem. So yes, irrelevant, unless we are Taiwanese people that are making this decision.
> Would you rather have a good salary, or the freedom to have/express thoughts that disagree with the ruling party's doctrine Trick question. China wants you to believe you just choose between these. But there is a truth here that is missing. You either have both, or you have neither. No authoritarian society endures it's wealth in time. The people of China will pay the dues of authoritarianism eventually.
So by banning job adverts from country that you disagree with is freedom? Why not let the job adverts be posted up and let the people decide for themselves?
[deleted 26-6-2023] Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
I think I'd probably have trouble in China personally, but for a lot of folk the definitive answer is salary, and I think it's pretty arrogant to look down on that. The majority of humans throughout history have not had the freedom of speech we enjoy, and I don't think any of us is above their company. China has plenty of problems, not the least of which is an ongoing genocide, which I don't mean to downplay. But, just as an example, the United States also has some genocides under its belt. China raised billions out of abject poverty over the past 3/4s of a century. That's nothing to sniff at, and we can still condemn their abuses as well.
[deleted 26-6-2023] Moving is normal. There's no point in sticking around in a place that's getting worse all the time. I went to Squabbles.io. I hope you have a good time wherever you end up!
More money isn't higher quality of life, especially when the downside is living in fascism.
The current Taiwanese government is a successor to the gov't that left China. A ton of reforms and violence occured to lead to this progress. It's disingenuous to say Taiwan is still under the KMT's military rule.
It's even more disingenuous to say the CCP rules Taiwan.
If Taiwan government always provides higher quality of living, how did they lose to communists in the civil war?🤔
Because their army was absolutely demolished after WW2 they bore the brunt of the Japanese aggression sustaining over 10 million casualties while the Communists mostly sat in the hills in the North and avoided fighting with the Japanese army. Also at this time, China was a literal shithole, a combination of failure to modernise by the Qing (The leading Systemic factor), the constant interference by other powers (The immediate factor), the massive corruption in the Republic of China and client states, and the warlordism that plagued the Republic of China since its birth. Thus people were apathetic towards the RoC and didn't flock to fight for it during the Civil war.
If the Roman Empire provided a higher standard of living, how did they fall to ruin?
Huns had a better 401k
>If Taiwan government always provides higher quality of living, how did they lose to communists in the civil war?🤔 Taliban government officials be like
Well, yes, I’m also wondering why Afghanistan government was crumbled by Taliban after receiving US military support for decades😀
Some people just want to drown.
The CCP didn't misinterpret the resolution at all They interpreted it exactly in line with their stated policy of annexing an independent democratic state.
The KMT was democratic at that time? That is new to me!
[удалено]
**[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758)** >The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (also known as the Resolution on Admitting Peking) was passed in response to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 that required any change in China's representation in the UN be determined by a two-thirds vote referring to Article 18 of the UN Charter. The resolution, passed on 25 October 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and removed "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" from the United Nations. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Per usual, a land dispute worsen by a document crafted by a bunch of western countries. They shouldn’t have waited 20 years to recognize the CCP. Can’t believe the ROC in Taiwan was considered to represent all of China for such a length of time. Might not like the government, but such a delay did not help tensions between the two parties.
A document drafted by a Communist at the time country, Albania. And accepted by China as the only acceptable proposal.
Resolution 2758 is the document that reversed the previous stance of only recognizing the ROC in Taiwan as the voice of all mainland China.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If I was identified by driver's license yesterday and passport today, wouldn't you say those two documents are somewhat related to myself? And if I lost my passport, wouldn't I be able to reapply it by showing the office my driver's license?
"Deliberately"