US Senate Resolution: “One China Policy” is not “One China Principle”

The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s senior member, Republican Senator Jim Risch from Idaho, announced on Thursday (May 16) that he and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire introduced a resolution on Wednesday reaffirming the United States’ “One China Policy” and emphasizing that it is distinct from the Chinese Communist Party’s “One China Principle”.

“The adoption of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971 does not imply global acceptance of China’s (CCP) sovereignty claim over Taiwan. Furthermore, the United States’ ‘One China Policy’ is different from China’s (CCP) ‘One China Principle,'” Risch stated in a press release. “Chinese (CCP) leaders are aware of this reality but continue to propagate this propaganda, denying Taiwan the ability to engage with international organizations. This resolution clarifies the facts. The U.S. is able and should push back on China’s false narratives at every opportunity.”

“America remains committed to Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations and the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues,” Shaheen said in her statement. “I am proud to help introduce this bipartisan resolution, firmly rejecting the dangerous and dishonest mischaracterization by the People’s Republic of China regarding UN Resolution 2758.”

Senator Risch’s statement outlined the key points of the resolution:

– “Rejecting the longstanding false narratives perpetuated by the CCP, that is, that UN Resolution 2758 represents international community acquiescence to China’s (CCP) sovereignty over Taiwan.”
– “Opposing China’s (CCP) efforts to obstruct Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations.”

The UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2758 in 1971, granting the People’s Republic of China led by Mao Zedong rights within the UN organization and expelling representatives of the Republic of China on Taiwan led by Chiang Kai-shek. The resolution stated that the General Assembly decided to “restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations and to immediately expel representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from their illegal occupation of seats in the United Nations and its related organizations.”

U.S. administration officials have emphasized that the United States does not support Taiwan’s independence, but at the same time, highlight that UN Resolution 2758 does not endorse China’s (CCP) “One China Principle”.

Mark Baxter Lambert, Deputy Assistant Secretary for China and Taiwan Affairs at the US State Department and head of the “China Desk,” stated at a think tank event in Washington last month: “First, the non-recognition of Resolution 2758 does not equate to, nor reflect consensus on, the Chinese (CCP) ‘One China Principle.’ That term refers to the PRC’s own position on Taiwan. Second, Resolution 2758 has no bearing on sovereign choices among countries regarding Taiwan relations. Third, with regard to the ultimate political status of Taiwan, Resolution 2758 does not represent a UN institutional position. Fourth, Resolution 2758 does not preclude Taiwan from meaningfully participating in the UN system and other multilateral forums.”

In the U.S. Congress, members from both parties have publicly stated that Beijing has distorted UN Resolution 2758.

In July 2023, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the Taiwan International Solidarity Act, aimed at assisting Taiwan in countering CCP diplomatic isolation. The bill clarifies that UN Resolution 2758 only recognizes the representatives of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representatives of China in the UN and does not address Taiwan’s representation at the UN, take a stance on the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan, or make any statements regarding Taiwan’s sovereignty. Senators later introduced a Senate version of the bill, which is currently under review by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

(This article is reprinted from Voice of America)