China Distorts the Meaning of the "Albania Resolution"
November 29, 2024
(The following is from today’s Seiron column in the Sankei Shimbun.)
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese public but for people around the world.
China Distorts the Meaning of the "Albania Resolution"
By Watanabe Toshio, Advisor, Takushoku University
Regarding China and Taiwan
Fifty years ago, the 26th United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758, commonly known as the "Albania Resolution."
In recent years, China has increasingly emphasized that this resolution proves the international community’s recognition of the "One China" principle.
If China were to use force against Taiwan, it would likely frame it as a "civil war" within "One China" to minimize international condemnation.
China would portray the conflict as a domestic issue, thereby attempting to shield itself from accusations of violating international norms.
The Albania Resolution, in essence, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC)—which had won the Chinese Civil War and assumed effective control of the mainland—as the legitimate representative of China at the United Nations. It replaced the Republic of China (ROC), which had lost the civil war and relocated to Taiwan, with the PRC as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
The core of the resolution reads as follows:
"Recognizes the representative of the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China in the United Nations, and recognizes the People's Republic of China as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; decides to restore all the rights of the People's Republic of China 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."
The wording is undeniably harsh toward Taiwan.
However, this resolution was solely concerned with the issue of China's representation in the UN—it did not endorse the "One China" principle that claims Taiwan as part of China.
The Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains the following position regarding the resolution:
"The Republic of China (Taiwan) is a sovereign, independent, and democratic nation and is not subordinate to the People's Republic of China. Only the democratically elected government of Taiwan has the right to represent the 23.5 million people living in Taiwan in the international community, including within the United Nations system."
In short, China's interpretation represents a clear distortion of the facts to suit its own political objectives.
A Far-Fetched Chinese Argument
China’s claim that the Albania Resolution affirms the "One China" principle is nothing more than a far-fetched argument.
While this might have originally been intended as part of China's "Three Warfares" strategy—a "legal warfare" tactic aimed at "winning without fighting"—it has now become a blatant abuse of the international legal framework.
Reflecting on this issue, I am reminded of an important precedent.
When Japan and China issued their Joint Communiqué in 1972, Japan merely stated that it "understood and respected" China’s claim that Taiwan was an "inalienable part of China"; it did not formally recognize it.
Kuriyama Yoichi, then director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Treaty Bureau and a drafter of the communiqué, later explained why:
"If Japan were to recognize (One China), China's use of force against Taiwan would be justified under international law as a civil war. Conversely, Japan would lose the legal grounds for supporting U.S. military action to defend Taiwan."
(Kasumigaseki-kai Newsletter, October 2007)
It was a shrewd and forward-looking decision, even from today's perspective.
China's strategy is not merely a matter of distorted logic; it often involves aggressively asserting the existence of facts that remain ambiguous, then pressuring others to accept them as reality.
A typical example is the so-called "1992 Consensus," which China still upholds as a foundational pillar of its "One China" policy.
Countering China’s Legal Warfare
The "1992 Consensus" is said to have emerged from a meeting in Hong Kong in October 1992 between Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait.
While both sides nominally acknowledged the existence of "One China," their interpretations diverged:
-
China interpreted it as the People's Republic of China.
-
Taiwan interpreted it as the Republic of China.
However, there was no written agreement regarding the "1992 Consensus."
Neither Taiwan’s President at the time, Lee Teng-hui, nor Koo Chen-fu, who led the negotiations on behalf of Taiwan, ever acknowledged its existence.
Despite this, China insists on the "1992 Consensus" as the basis for cross-strait exchanges and argues that rejecting it would damage the interests of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
China’s official stance was reaffirmed in the 2021 Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, which declared:
"We uphold the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus, and firmly oppose separatist activities advocating Taiwan independence."
In its so-called "legal warfare," China frequently imposes its own interpretations onto international agreements, resolutions, and statements, then aggressively pressures the international community and other nations to accept them.
This approach parallels the rise of "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy"—an arrogant, combative diplomatic style that assumes China’s rise is inevitable and demands unconditional acceptance of its claims.
Facing this reality, Japan and other democratic nations must also be prepared to engage in legal warfare to defend international law and democratic principles against China’s manipulative tactics.
