|
GA/9908 |
|
|
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 188-ITEM GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGENDA, INCLUDING PROPOSAL FOR "Republic of China on Taiwan" Not Recommended for Inclusion NEW YORK, 14 September (UN Headquarters) -- In three meetings today, the General Committee of the General Assembly’s fifty-sixth session recommended that the Assembly include 188 items on its agenda for the session. The Committee also recommended adoption of the Assembly’s organization of work and allocation of new items to its committees. Eight items on which the Committee deliberated today were new to the Assembly’s agenda. Those were: the administration of justice at the United Nations; observance of the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict; cooperation between the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum; observer status for the International Development Law Institute, the International Hydrographic Organization and Sahelo-Saharan States in the General Assembly; an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings; and the need to examine the exceptional international situation pertaining to the Republic of China on Taiwan, to ensure that the fundamental right of its 23 million people to participate in the work and activities of the United Nations is fully respected. The Committee recommended that consideration of the item on administration of justice at the United Nations be deferred. It also recommended that the items on observer status and on an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings be allocated to the Sixth Committee (Legal). The items on the International Day and on the Pacific Islands Forum were recommended for consideration in plenary meetings. For the sixth time, and after hearing from 92 speakers, the General Committee decided not to recommend that the Assembly include on its agenda the item on the Republic of China on Taiwan. Introducing the item, the representative of the Gambia said the Republic of China on Taiwan was a democratic, responsible member of the international community. It had made conciliatory gestures to the People’s Republic of China, and the United Nations should support such gestures. The representative of China said that the attempt to create "one China, one Taiwan" was a violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. In addition, the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation had reaffirmed China's sovereignty over Taiwan. Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), adopted in 1971 by an overwhelming majority, had stated that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China were the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations. That resolution had solved, once and for all, the issue of China’s representation at the United Nations. Thus, there was simply no such issue as the so-called "Taiwan representation in the United Nations". Of the 91 speakers on the item, 24 spoke in favour of including the item in the agenda and 67 spoke against. Expressing support for inclusion, in addition to Gambia, were representatives of Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Nauru, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Senegal, Chad, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Liberia, Belize, Paraguay, El Salvador, Burkina Faso, Palau, Panama, Malawi, Solomon Islands, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Dominica and Saint Kitts and Nevis. Speaking against inclusion, in addition to China, were the representatives of Lesotho, Guyana, Sudan, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Mongolia, Argentina, Cyprus, Morocco, Saint Lucia, United Republic of Tanzania, Tajikistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, Mexico, South Africa, Mauritius, Malaysia, Iran, Myanmar, Brazil, Gabon, Spain, France, Ireland, Egypt, Kazakhstan, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Italy, Angola, Chile, Algeria, Cambodia, Zambia, Namibia, Malta, Nepal, Hungary, Belarus, Congo, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Greece, Tunisia, Mali, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Libya, Yemen, Russian Federation, Djibouti, Bhutan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Ghana, Guinea, Republic of Moldova and Pakistan. In addition, the Committee decided to draw the Assembly’s attention to a resumed third session of the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on Financing for Development, to be held from 15 to 19 December. It also recommended that a new item entitled "Cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations" should subsume the other items concerning regional relations. The Committee recalled that the Assembly had decided to devote two days of plenary meetings at the fifty-sixth session, on 3 and 4 December, to considering follow-up measures to the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. Also, two plenary meetings were to be devoted to considering social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family, to coincide with the close of the International Year of Volunteers on 5 December. On the Committee’s recommendation, the Assembly should recess no later than 11 December and close its current session on 9 September 2002. Also, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) should close by 9 November and the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) by 16 November. The Sixth Committee (Legal) should close by 23 November and the Third (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) by 28 November. Both the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) and the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) should close by 7 December. Concerning Assembly procedures, the Committee recommended that the Assembly defer a number of items to its fifty-seventh session. Those included the question of the Malagasy islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa, Bassas da India and the question of Cyprus. Expressing condolences to the host country and city for the tragedy of the terrorist attack against them, the Committee announced postponement of the general debate. In view of recent events, the debate that was to have taken place from 25 September to 5 October would be rescheduled to a new time period to be announced. Speaking on issues in addition to that on the Republic of China on Taiwan were the representatives of Mauritania, Portugal, Kuwait, Nauru, Monaco, France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Libya, Germany, France, Senegal, Monaco, Gambia, China, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Lesotho, Guyana, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Mongolia, Argentina, Bangladesh, Mexico, Honduras, France and the United States. The General Committee will meet again at a time to be announced. Background The General Assembly's General Committee met this morning to consider the organization of work of the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, the Assembly’s agenda and the allocation of items for the session. The Committee had before it a memorandum by the Secretary-General (document A/BUR/56/1 and Add.1), according to which the Committee would recommend that the fifty-sixth session recess not later than Tuesday, 11 December. The closing date of the fifty-sixth session will be 9 September 2002. The document proposes 190 items for inclusion in this year's agenda of the Assembly, including: follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit; oceans and the law of the sea; the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict; the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters; the situation in East Timor during its transition to independence; the "need to examine the exceptional international situation pertaining to the Republic of China on Taiwan, to ensure that the fundamental right of its 23 million people to participate in the work and activities of the United Nations is fully respected"; the question of Palestine; towards global partnerships; strengthening the United Nations system; revitalization of the work of the General Assembly; the role of the United Nations in promoting a new global human order; the United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations; an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings; and observer status for Partners in Population and Development in the General Assembly. Statements On the item entitled "Question of the Malagasy islands of Glorieuse, Juan de Nova", the representative of Mauritania recommended that the item be deferred to the next Assembly and be placed on the agenda of the fifty-seventh session of the Assembly without any prejudice. The representative of Portugal suggested that the Assembly defer consideration of the item to the next session of the Assembly and include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session without any prejudice. The Assembly decided to defer the item and include it in the provisional agenda of the fifty-seventh session. The representative of Kuwait, speaking on item 183, entitled "Observance of the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict", said he was concerned with the mobilization of efforts to preserve the environment for future generations, because of the exploitation and abuse of the environment during armed conflicts. It was easy to understand the results and implications of the armed conflict in the Gulf for the environment. His people were still suffering from serious health problems because of it. He, therefore, asked for observance of the International Day on 6 November annually, and that the General Committee include the item in the agenda. The Committee decided to include the aforementioned item in the provisional agenda. The representative of Nauru, on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum Group, said inscription of the proposed agenda item 184 on cooperation between the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum would provide a useful opportunity for consideration of the unique issues facing Pacific Islands Forum member countries and the important role that cooperation between the Forum and the United Nations played in addressing those issues. The new item will also ensure that the Pacific Islands Forum's relations with the United Nations were on par with those of other regional groups. Inscription of the item would also facilitate plans to integrate existing multi-sectoral cooperation between the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum Group, and provide a focal point for efforts to coordinate the regional activities of the different components of the United Nations system. The representative of Monaco requested inclusion of an item entitled "Observer status for the International Hydrographic Organization in the General Assembly". He said all regions of the world were represented in the organization, which had been established in Monaco in 1919 for the purpose of improving the safety of operations connected with hydrographics. The organization had been active in the affairs of Member States at the invitation of the United Nations legal office. As an observer to the General Assembly, it would be able to participate in United Nations activities associated with marine safety and would be of greater assistance to Member States, especially to developing countries. The representatives of France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Portugal supported the inclusion of the item on the agenda. The representative of the Sudan, speaking on item 186 entitled "Observer Status for the Community of Sahelo-Saharan States in the General Assembly", said the Sudan presided over the Community of the Sahelo-Saharan States. In his letter to the President of the Assembly, of 30 July (document A/56/191), he had annexed an explanatory note stating that there were 16 African States members of the Community and reconfirming that observer status would facilitate cooperation between the two bodies in the future. To gain observer status would facilitate the economic efforts and development of the Community. The representative of Burkina Faso said the Community was pursuing development goals similar to those of the United Nations and had already given proof of its vitality and effectiveness in recent years. A legal and institutional framework had been created. Cooperation with the United Nations could be very beneficial given the similarity of goals. He, therefore, supported the proposal. The representatives of Nigeria and Libya supported the proposal to include the additional item in the provisional agenda. The Committee decided to include the item in the provisional agenda. The representative of Germany introduced an item for inclusion in the agenda entitled "International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings" with the recommendation that it be allocated to the Assembly’s Sixth Committee (Legal). He said negotiations on the subject of cloning must be open to all States and relevant bodies of the United Nations, especially the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which had already stated that practices related to the cloning of human beings were contrary to human dignity. It was time to transpose the declaration into a legally binding norm. The representative of France said the United Nations was the appropriate body to deal with issues related to cloning, since the question was so multi-faceted. A special working group should be charged with the issue. Since UNESCO had already affirmed the principle of non-cloning, the question of whether cloning should take place was not the matter for deliberation. Rather, the Assembly would be considering how to translate the principle into a legal form. The Assembly should be the first to take up the issue, since everybody’s contribution was vital for deciding on an approach. The representatives of Senegal and Monaco strongly supported including the item on the agenda. The representative of the Gambia spoke on item 188 entitled "Need to examine the exceptional international situation pertaining to the Republic of China on Taiwan, to ensure that the fundamental rights of its 23 million people to participate in the work and activities of the United Nations is fully respected" and on behalf of Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Dominica, El Salvador, Malawi, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Swaziland and Tuvalu. She said in October 1971, in resolution 2758 (XXVI), the Assembly had decided to give the China seat to the People's Republic of China, but failed to provide for representation to the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan. The People's Republic of China had never exercised control over the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan and the latter had developed its own systems and cultures. The Republic of China on Taiwan had always been a responsible member of the international community and was a democratic country, she said. It was committed to upholding the international laws pertaining to human rights and the rule of law. In the field of information technology, Taiwan was invaluable and had a lot to offer. Was it wise to shut it out of the United Nations? she asked. The Republic of China on Taiwan had also helped in the social and economic development of countries in the region and had provided disaster relief to several countries and responded to United Nations relief appeals. The Republic of China on Taiwan had been making conciliatory gestures to the People’s Republic China. The United Nations should support such gestures. In the era of globalization, no country should be left behind, she said. It was not a time of exclusion, but inclusion. The item should be given careful consideration. Cooperation, not confrontation, should be the emphasis. References by the People's Republic of China to Taiwan as a renegade province was a myth. The representative of China said that the attempt to create "two Chinas" and "one China, one Taiwan" was a violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter and General Assembly resolution 2758. It was an indisputably objective reality and legal fact, recognized by the international community, that there was only one China in the world. In addition, the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation had reaffirmed China's sovereignty over Taiwan. He said that in 1971 the General Assembly adopted by an overwhelming majority historic resolution 2758 acknowledging, in clear and unequivocal terms, that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China were the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations. The resolution solved once and for all the issue of China’s representation at the United Nations. Since then, China had rightfully represented all Chinese, including their compatriots in Taiwan, in the United Nations and all organizations related to it. Thus, there was simply no such issue as the so-called "Taiwan representation in the United Nations". According to international law, he continued, state sovereignty is indivisible and so is the representation of a State in an international organization composed of sovereign States. Taiwan was already covered in China's representation at the United Nations and was thus not eligible to participate on its own, in any other name or under any pretext. To raise this issue again would constitute a serious violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter as well as resolution 2758. The request had been flatly refused by the General Assembly since 1993; this year's proposal was also doomed to fail. The representative of Sao Tome and Principe said that membership in the United Nations was a right, not a privilege. Committed to the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Republic of China should not be denied the right to membership. He added that the use of force to seize Taiwan or threats to do so, endangered international peace and security and violated the principles of the Charter. Recent signs of an arms race across the Taiwan Strait should be of deep concern to all. The claim that the matter had been resolved in 1971 and that it was an internal affair of a Member State of the United Nations, reflected a failure to understand the lessons of East Timor and other recent humanitarian disasters, he said. He understood the difficulties the issue presented, but believed it was an obligation to work within the Charter to foster peace by returning the Republic of China to the United Nations. The representative of Swaziland said those who had supported the inclusion of the item on the agenda before were doing so now with a new conviction. No country today existed in a vacuum. The United Nations had helped other countries with problems similar to those faced by the Republic of China on Taiwan. The item should be placed on the agenda. The new era of reconciliation would eventually heal hostilities between the countries involved. The international community should find an answer to the question of Taiwan. The Committee should take an informed decision and do the right thing. The representative of Lesotho said he lent his voice to the chorus against inclusion of the item. Taiwan was part of China. The people of Taiwan were already represented in the General Assembly through China. There was no need to discuss the issue of Taiwan’s participation in the United Nations. Nauru’s representative said the Republic of China on Taiwan was a State. It was not a province of the People’s Republic of China. There was no "one China" any more than there was "one Korea". The character of the country was still to be decided. The Republic of China on Taiwan had a strong economy. It contributed politically and economically to the United Nations and its activities. It would be a shame if a humanitarian country like Taiwan was prevented from participating in the United Nations. The representative of Guyana said she was opposed to inclusion of the item. There was only one China, the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan was an integral part of China. Her country had always been supportive of Assembly's resolution 2758. Not only the United Nations, but also other regional and international organizations should be guided by that decision. She strongly objected to the recommendation to consider the item. The representative of the Sudan said the Member States should work towards the preservation of the United Nations Charter. Disregarding Assembly resolutions should be avoided. Resolution 2758 had stipulated that the People's Republic of China was the sole, legitimate representative of the people of China in the United Nations. He categorically rejected inclusion of any item on the agenda regarding participation of Taiwan. The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said the only lawful representative in the United Nations was the People's Republic of China. Taiwan's participation in the United Nations would constitute a violation of the United Nations Charter. He opposed inclusion of the item. The representative of Afghanistan said his country's position had always been the same: there was only one China in the world, and Taiwan was a province of China. Resolution 2758 decisively dealt with the issue of the representation of the people of China. It was essential that the issue not be included in the agenda. The representative of Sri Lanka said his country's position on the subject had always been that there was only one China -- the People's Republic of China, representing China in its entirety. Resolution 2758 allowed representation of all the people of China through the People's Republic of China. He opposed inclusion of the item. The representative of the Dominican Republic supported the group of States requesting inclusion of the item, to ensure the fundamental rights of the 23 million people of the Republic of China on Taiwan to participate in the work of the United Nations. The Republic had been an important Member of the Organization for several years in the past. The representative of Cuba said it was not the first time the subject was being discussed by the General Committee. The Cuban position was well known. Including the item would not be in line with other resolutions. The Government of the People’s Republic of China was the only recognized government of China and the item should not be included on the agenda. Mongolia’s representative said he saw no compelling reason to include the item on the agenda. The representative of Argentina recalled the history of Taiwan and the People’s Republic within the United Nations. Taiwan was an indivisible part of the People’s Republic. On the principle of the territorial integrity of States, he was against including the item on the agenda. The representative of Grenada said that the claim that Taiwan was a province of China was a bone of contention, defying history, logic and reality. The Machiavellian tactics of cold war diplomacy on the part of some Member States had resulted in Taiwan living in the twilight zone of diplomatic representation, instead of full membership within the United Nations. He requested that the United Nations recognize the fundamental right of the 23 million peace-loving and democratic people of Taiwan. China and Taiwan must continue to coexist, he said, and return to serious and high-level cross-strait dialogue. The politics of association and compromise must take precedence over the politics of confrontation and exclusion. The representative of Marshall Islands said that resolution 2758 had deterred and deprived the participation of the 23 million people and non-governmental groups of the Republic of China on Taiwan in political, economic and cultural activities under the United Nations system. How could it be that a successful and responsible member of the international community, a founding Member of the United Nations, a model of economic success and democratic politics, could still be kept outside the gates of the United Nations? he asked. The time had come to reconsider the exclusion of the Republic of China on Taiwan. The United Nations could serve as a forum to build understanding and goodwill between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. Indeed, as an organization dedicated to maintaining international peace and security, the United Nations was obliged to do so. The representative of Senegal said the issue should be considered by the Assembly. Taiwan was a founding Member of the Organization and had been a victim of injustice for 30 years. The discussion was not a futile exercise and not directed against any Member State. The Republic of China on Taiwan was a State in the full sense of the law. Senegal’s President visited Taipei recently and enabled Senegal to deepen its relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. He supported reunification of the two States. Admission of Taiwan would provide for more regional peace and security and collective security in a globalized world. He supported inclusion of the item in the Assembly's agenda. The representative of Chad said the matter at hand was as old as the United Nations itself. The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan had existed alongside each other for a long time, under their own laws and jurisdiction. The international community should study a way to give the 23 million people on Taiwan their place in the concert of nations. He pleaded for inclusion of the item. The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines said once again an attempt was made to correct an historic wrong. Her country had had relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan for 20 years. Her support for Taiwan in no way diminished her country's respect for the People's Republic of China. The Republic of China on Taiwan's record on development was one of the most persuasive reasons to admit it to the family of nations. The time had come for the United Nations to let the Republic of China on Taiwan contribute to the mechanisms and agencies of its bodies. She supported inclusion of the item. The representative of Tuvalu gave his strongest support to the inclusion of the item. There was urgent need for the United Nations to provide proper avenues for deeper understanding between all groups. The purpose of the item was to seek such an avenue. The United Nations must re-examine its attitude towards China, though reconciliation and mutual respect. The 1971 resolution had omitted the Republic of China on Taiwan and did not address the issue of legitimate representation. Ironically, despite Taiwan’s democratic principles, projection of good governance and protection of fundamental human rights, the Republic of China on Taiwan had been deliberately excluded from the United Nations. No serious effort had ever been launched to openly resolve the issue, he added. The representative of Liberia said that it was time to ensure that the fundamental human rights of 23 million people were fully respected. It was regrettable that some delegations had chosen to dismiss the issue, she said. The Taiwanese aspirations for self-determination must not be relegated to subservience. Despite its democratic government, its contributions to international society, the Republic of China on Taiwan continued to be deprived of participation within the United Nations. The United Nations was urged to encourage reconciliation between the two parties and to narrow the political divide in a peaceful manner. The representative of Cyprus said that since independence, Cyprus had consistently adhered to the principle of territorial integrity. This debate concerning the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan had already been settled in 1971 when it was made clear that the only lawful representative of China was the People’s Republic of China. That position had repeatedly been endorsed by the United Nations. The representative of Belize said his nation stood firm in supporting the inclusion of the Republic of China on Taiwan on the agenda. The representative of Morocco said the question of the representation of China had already been settled by previous United Nations resolutions, whereby the General Assembly recognized the People's Republic of China as the only representative of the people of China. With no new elements to be introduced, Morocco could not reconsider its position on this issue and was against including the item in the agenda. The representative of Burkina Faso said it was abnormal that a community of nations had ostracized and impeded another country from contact with the international community. The Republic of China on Taiwan had been placed at the margin of the international system, even though it had been a founding Member of the United Nations. It was vital that the Republic of China on Taiwan find its place among the family of nations. The General Assembly had to ensure that measures were undertaken in that direction. Burkina Faso recommended the creation of a working group with a mandate to study the specific situation and to recommend appropriate solutions. The representative of Palau said that the Republic of China on Taiwan rightfully deserved membership within the United Nations, and Taiwan had the right to participate in any international organization or activity. The Republic of China was democratic, adhered to fundamental human rights and was seeking to contribute to international society. The United Nations had a role to play in making that a reality. The representative of Paraguay said that the question should be resolved between the two parties in a spirit of reconciliation, according to the Charter principle of universality and within the framework of international law. The international community must examine the question. The Organization attempted to prevent conflicts around the world, and he saw no reason not to consider this question. The representative of El Salvador said the number of speakers on the agenda item confirmed its importance. In light of changes in the international community -- especially in light of the new nationalism of many peoples -- there is no doubt that the question should be considered. The question has a more political than legal character. According to the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the will of the people was the basis of power in any country. His delegation reaffirmed its support for including the item. The representative of Saint Lucia said her delegation's support for the "one-China" policy was unwavering. It was vital that the United Nations pursue efforts and work towards a one-China policy. In the wider interest of prosperity and security, the responsibility is upon the United Nations to take the enlightened path. Her delegation would like to reiterate its unambiguous opposition to inclusion of the item. The representative of Panama said he continued to exhort the parties to solve their differences in accordance with democratic principles. The item simply asked the Assembly to consider the question of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It did not seem logical for the United Nations to deny the 23 million inhabitants the ability to participate in the United Nations system. The system of the United Nations could contribute to solving the question, as it had in other areas of the world. The representative of Malawi said that the 23 million people of the Republic of China were earnestly seeking dignity at home and in the international community of nations. That dignity was being denied the Taiwanese people by their exclusion from the United Nations and nearly every intergovernmental organization. He appealed to the United Nations to seriously consider the question of Taiwan's readmission to its membership. It was necessary to revoke the decadent section of resolution 2758. The representative of the Solomon Islands said it was one of the bitter ironies of the times that the Republic of China had been excluded not only from the United Nations and all its specialized agencies, but also from nearly every other intergovernmental organization in the world. It was simply unfair and unjust, and to argue that the 1971 resolution had settled the issue would be a denial of today’s realities. The United Nations was the appropriate forum to nurture a trust and confidence between the two parties that would lead to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the Asia Pacific region as a whole. Above all, Taiwan’s membership and participation in the United Nations system was consistent with the universality of the United Nations. The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said that, as in previous years, Tanzania's position remained consistent and solidly against the request for the inclusion of the item in the provisional agenda. There was no compelling reason to undermine the provisions of the 1971 resolution, particularly at a time when calls for respect for international law were being heard loud and clear. The People’s Republic of China was capable of handling its own internal problems. The representative of Tajikistan supported the territorial integrity of the People's Republic of China. There was only one China. The Government of the People's Republic of China was the only government of China and represented the people of China, including those in Taiwan. Resolution 2758 had resolved the issue in a comprehensive way and need not be revisited. The representative of Iraq said it was clear that the overwhelming majority of the United Nations Members wanted resolution 2758 to be respected. The Government of the People's Republic of China was the only representative of the Chinese people. Taiwan was an integral part of the People's Republic of China. The evolution of a province in any way did not mean that that province had the right to secede. He was against inclusion of the item on the agenda for the current and later sessions of the Assembly. The representative of Ukraine opposed the inclusion of the item. The Government of the People's Republic of China was the only government representing the people of China. The representative of Nicaragua considered the Republic of China on Taiwan as a peaceful country that had relations with several countries. It was an injustice that it had not been admitted to the United Nations for reasons going back to the cold war. The cooperation of Taiwan with several developing countries had been remarkable. A working group should be established to examine the situation. The representative of Syria said inclusion of agenda item 188 in the Assembly's agenda was contrary to its adopted practices. Inclusion of the item would not help the United Nations attain the goals it was trying to pursue. The representative of Mexico said he supported the sovereignty and integrity of China. The agenda item was not compatible with the interests of the Organization. He found no justification to call into question the 1971 resolution of the Assembly. The representative of South Africa said his country was in support of the one-China policy. He also believed that the question was an internal matter for the people of the Republic of China to be resolved by themselves. He could not support inclusion of the item. The representative of Mauritius said the People's Republic of China was the sole legal government representative of the whole of the Republic of China. The Assembly's 1971 resolution solved the question. He did not support inclusion of the item in the Assembly's agenda. The representative of Malaysia said the present question had been solved once and for all in 1971. Accordingly, his delegation could not support inclusion of the agenda item in the work of the Assembly. The representative of Iran said the representative of the People’s Republic of China was the only legitimate representative of the Chinese nation to the United Nations. He fully supported the requests and comments made by the delegation of the People's Republic of China and was not in favour of including the item in the Assembly's agenda. The representative of Myanmar opposed including the item in the General Assembly agenda. Assembly resolution 2758 had already resolved the issue by recognizing the People's Republic of China as the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations. Myanmar had recognized the People's Republic of China since its inception in 1949 and also recognized Taiwan as an integral part of the People's Republic of China. The question was a purely internal one. The representative of Brazil said the representation of China had been definitely settled by General Assembly resolution 2758, and he rejected including the item. The representative of Gabon said that it had always opposed including the item. It was contrary to resolution 2758, which recognized only one China -- the People's Republic of China -- and could also introduce territorial difficulties and problems. The representative of Spain said the issue had been solved by an earlier decision of the General Assembly, resolution 2758 of 1971. Therefore, Spain was opposed to inclusion of the item in the current General Assembly session. The representative of France said his country opposed including the item in the agenda, based on its respect for General Assembly resolution 2758. He said France’s intent was to promote specific dialogue between the two different sides. The representative of Ireland said he adhered to the principles of the one-China policy and could not support inscription of the item on the Assembly's agenda. The representative of Egypt said his country recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of the people of China and did not support inclusion of the item on the Assembly agenda. The representative of Kazakhstan said he supported the position of the People’s Republic of China and opposed inclusion of the item on the Assembly's agenda. He reiterated that the question was an internal affair and should be solved by the Chinese people themselves. The representative of the United Kingdom said he looked to both sides of the Taiwan straits to resolve their differences peacefully. He was not in favour of inclusion of the item. The representative of Uzbekistan said he was not in support of inclusion of the item. The People’s Republic of China was the only legitimate representative of the people of China. The representative of Kuwait said the People’s Republic of China was the only representative of the Chinese people. Any inclusion of the item would violate the integrity of China and be an interference in its internal affairs. There was only one China, with its government in Beijing. The representative of Italy said the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the only representative of the Chinese people. That Government should seek a peaceful solution to the question. He could not support inclusion of the item on the Assembly's agenda. The representative of Angola said he considered the Republic of China on Taiwan a part of the People’s Republic of China and did not support inclusion of the current item in the Assembly's agenda. The representative of Chile recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the only representative of the Chinese people. The representative of Algeria opposed inclusion of the item on the agenda. The representative of Cambodia said in 1971 the Assembly had adopted by an overwhelming majority resolution 2758. The question had been resolved once and for all by that resolution. He supported the one-China policy, recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the only representative of the Chines people, and opposed inclusion of the item. The representative of Zambia recognized there was only one China, with Taiwan an integral part of it. The Government of the People's Republic of China was the only representative of the Chinese people. Resolution 2758 reaffirmed the recognition of the People's Republic of China as the sole representative of the Chinese people. One should abide by that resolution. He opposed inclusion of item 188 on the agenda of the fifty-sixth session. The representative of Guatemala maintained full relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. He had always been concerned about the situation of the 23 million inhabitants and supported inclusion of the item. He also felt committed to the reunification of the two Chinas. He trusted that the differences between the two would be resolved. The representative of Namibia said that his position was consistent and firm, the one-China principle. This had been made clear in 1971 and remained so. The representative of Malta said that the United Nations General Assembly had already expressed itself comprehensively on the matter in 1971. A new approach could be detrimental to the region rather than constructive. Malta would not support this additional item. The representative of Nepal said there was only one China. This policy was consistent and the only lawful means of representation with regards to the Chinese people. No inclusion could be supported. The representative of Hungary believed in the principle of one-China and would continue to speak against the inclusion of this item. The representative of Congo recalled the position it had always had, based on the 1971 resolution. The People's Republic of China was the only China. Any other approach to this issue would interfere with China's internal affairs. The representative of Belarus was in favour of the territorial integrity of China. As many other representatives had already said: there was only one China. Belarus was, therefore, against the inclusion. The representative of Sierra Leone reiterated the one-China policy. Taiwan was an integral part of China and the internal affairs should be left to the Chinese Government. The representative of Mozambique reiterated his support for the one-China policy. Taiwan was part of China. Resolution 2758 had settled the matter once and for all. He did not support inclusion of the item. The representative of Kyrgyzstan reiterated her support of resolution 2758. She was against inclusion of the item. The representative of Nigeria recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole representative of the Chinese people. In accordance with his Country’s one-China policy, he did not favour inclusion of the item. The representative of Greece held that the Government of the People's Republic of China was the legitimate representative of the Chinese people at the United Nations. He opposed the inclusion of the item. The representative of Tunisia reaffirmed his country’s position that there was only one China, and resolution 2758 had settled the matter of the representation of that country. The representative of Mali said that the issue of representation of China had been dealt with and settled. Taiwan was an inseparable part of the People's Republic of China and, therefore, no inclusion could be supported. The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic reiterated its well-known position: there was only one China, and the Government was the only legitimate representative of the Chinese people. As the resolution adopted in 1971 had settled the matter, his delegation was against the inclusion of the item. The representative of Dominica said that, as a co-sponsor, he believed that Taiwan had earned the right to participate in the United Nations. This was a call for justice for a democratically elected government and a sovereign State. It was a simple and sensible request, he added. The Republic of China on Taiwan met all the conditions to be party to the United Nations. The policy of exclusion ran counter to the principles of the United Nations, and the legitimate desires of the people of Taiwan deserved to be given consideration. The representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis welcomed this debate on the fundamental right of the Republic of China on Taiwan's legitimate right to participate in international dialogue. The United Nations had a role to play to ensure that the voices of 23 million people were heard. He challenged the United Nations to take the lead on this matter. The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said that his country safeguarded the defence of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. Considering these principles, an inclusion was rejected. The representative of Burundi said that by passing resolution 2758 the General Assembly had decided to restore the People's Republic of China in its full right and recognize it as the only legal representative of the people of China in the United Nations. The Government of Burundi had always considered there was only one China, of which Taiwan was a part. He opposed including this item on the agenda. The representative of Libya said that this question was settled once and for all in 1971 when the General Assembly adopted resolution 2758. Since then, the People's Republic of China has occupied its seat in the United Nations as the sole representative of China. He opposed including this item on the agenda of this and subsequent sessions of the General Assembly. The representative of Yemen said the United Nations had settled this matter almost 30 years ago when it accepted the People's Republic of China as the sole representative of the Chinese people. He opposed including the item on the General Assembly agenda. The representative of the Russian Federation expressed strong support for the sovereignty of China and added that the General Assembly had already qualified the People's Republic of China as the only legal Government of China. The resolution did not need to be revisited. The representative of Djibouti said that Taiwan was an integral part of the People's Republic of China and that the debate about it was a waste of time, a distraction from the important issues that the General Assembly had to address. The representative of Bhutan said his delegation was against the inclusion of the item as it had been in the past. The representative of Zimbabwe reiterated that the 1971 resolution had settled the matter of representation of the Chinese people in the United Nations. This was an internal matter for the Chinese Government to solve. The representative of Venezuela joined other delegations in rejecting the inclusion of this item. The People's Republic of China was the only lawful representative of the Chinese people. The representative of Ghana said the current question was settled by the Assembly’s 1971 resolution. The People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China of which Taiwan was a part. He opposed the inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda. The representative of Guinea said the Assembly’s 1971 resolution declared that the People's Republic of China was the only representative of the Chinese people. He opposed inclusion of the item in the Assembly’s agenda. The representative of the Republic of Moldova said the current question was solved in 1971, and he aligned himself with those delegations opposing inclusion of the item. The representative of Pakistan said the Committee had once again indulged itself in a repetitious and wasteful debate. There was only one People’s Republic of China. The Committee every year had reached only one conclusion, that Taiwan had no right whatsoever to claim membership in the Organization. Any attempt to reopen the issue constituted a serious violation of the Charter itself. He hoped it would be the last time the Committee would be discussing the question. The representative of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the member States of the intergovernmental organization Partners in Population and Development, said the organization was established following the International Conference on Population and Development (ICDP) in 1994. Today, it had a membership of 16 countries covering half of the global population. Since its inception, the organization had made much progress in terms of transfer of knowledge, expertise and skills through South-South cooperation in population and development. The committee’s member States believe its involvement with the United Nations would enable it to contribute effectively in the work of the United Nations in the area of population and development. Therefore, it is important to include the question of the organization’s observer status on the Assembly’s agenda. The representative of Mexico said he supported the statement made by the representative of Bangladesh. The representative of Honduras said he supported the inclusion of the proposed agenda item regarding the Republic of China on Taiwan. The representative of France, speaking on the topic administration of justice at the United Nations, said that discussions on administration of justice would cover topics that were legal and juridical in nature. Some topics seemed to be in the sphere of competence of the Sixth Committee. However, it was difficult to have a precise idea which Committee would be exclusively competent, if at all possible at the moment. It was suggested that the question of attribution to a specific Committee be deferred until there was clearer idea of the report of the Secretary-General on the question. The representative of the United States said, concerning the item on cooperation between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, that work must be undertaken by the Sixth Committee before there could be any consideration of an extension of privileges to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The General Committee then decided to allocate this item to the Sixth Committee. * *** * |
|
