Press Release
GA/9092
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 159 ITEMS FOR FIFTY-FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGENDA
The General Committee this morning recommended that the fifty-first General Assembly adopt an agenda of 159 items.
Recommendations on the inclusion of agenda items and their allocation to the Assembly’s six Main Committees were made during a paragraph-by-paragraph review of a memorandum of the Secretary-General on the organization of work for the session.
Among the new items recommended for inclusion in the agenda were the question of the elaboration of an international convention against organized transnational crime, and the elimination of coercive economic measures to apply political and economic pressures. New items dealing with the observer status of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and the financing of the United Nations Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH) were also included.
A proposed new item on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of nuclear weapons was recommended for inclusion as a sub-item of agenda item 71 on general and complete disarmament.
The Committee did not recommend that the General Assembly consider a proposed item on the “exceptional situation of the inability, resulting from General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), of the 21.3 million people on Taiwan, Republic of China, to participate in the activities of the United Nations”. The request for inclusion of the item was sponsored by Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Swaziland and Solomon Islands.
The decision was made following a lengthy debate during which a number of speakers supported the initiative, stating that the 21 million people of Taiwan should be represented in the activities of the international community.
General Committee – 1a – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
However, numerous participants also took the floor to oppose the initiative, stating that the question of China’s representation had been decided once and for all in the Assembly.
The representative of the People’s Republic of China said that the proposal to include the new item was a brazen attempt to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” at the United Nations. Such a situation would be a serious encroachment upon China’s sovereignty and a gross interference in its internal affairs, he said.
As one of the sponsors of the request for inclusion of the item, the representative of Solomon Islands said resolution 2758 (XXVI), which recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations, had been adopted 25 years ago and reflected the language of the cold war. The new item should be included on the agenda to allow, as an interim measure, the people of Taiwan to participate in and contribute to the work of the United Nations.
Statements on the proposed inclusion of the item concerning Taiwan were made by the representatives of Chile, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Brazil, Cuba, Peru, Swaziland, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Egypt, Iraq, Senegal, Niger, United Republic of Tanzania, Kazakstan, Belize, Myanmar, Gambia, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Philippines, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Saint Lucia, Malawi, Guatemala, Central African Republic, Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, El Salvador, Algeria, Zambia, Cyprus, Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Libya, Syria, Mongolia, Iran, Mauritania, Mexico, Burundi, Sudan, Turkey, Angola, Botswana, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, Belarus, Ghana and Afghanistan.
In response to an appeal by the President of the General Assembly and Committee Chairman Razali Ismail (Malaysia) to come to a decision on the Taiwan item, a number of speakers agreed to submit their full statements for the Committee record and limit their oral presentation to only their position in support of or in opposition to the proposal.
Regarding the other new items, the Committee recommended that the new items relating to the observer status of Interpol and the elimination of coercive economic measures be considered directly in plenary. The Committee also recommended that the elaboration of an international convention against transnational crime be considered by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) and that the financing of UNSMIH be allocated to the Fifth Committee.
General Committee – 1b – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
The Committee also recommended that, in the item on the implementation of the Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, all chapters of the report of the Special Committee relating to specific Territories should be referred to the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization), thus enabling the Assembly to deal in plenary with the question of implementation of the Declaration as a whole.
The Committee recommended that the question of the Falkland Islands (Maldives) be considered directly in plenary, on the understanding that interested bodies and individuals would be heard in the Fourth Committee.
The Committee further recommended that certain relevant paragraphs of the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) be drawn to the attention of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security). Also, the Committee recommended that the report of the United Nations Development Fund for Women be referred to the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) for consideration under item 100, on operational activities for development. The Committee deferred allocation of the item “Question of Cyprus” until later in the current session.
In connection with the item on human resources management, the Committee recommended that the Sixth Committee (Legal) examine the legal implications of proposals made by the Secretary-General on reform of the Secretariat’s internal system of justice and that the Fifth Committee revert to the internal system of justice during the current session.
While recommending that the allocation of other agenda items be based on the pattern of previous years, the Committee decided that items previously allocated to the plenary meetings be referred to Main Committees unless there were compelling circumstances requiring continued plenary consideration. In that regard, the Committee recommended the allocation of lists of items to the respective Main Committees as proposed in the Memorandum of the Secretary- General. The Committee also recommended several practices be employed by the Main Committees to expedite their work.
Also this morning, the General Committee approved the Assembly’s organization of work. It recommended that the fifty-first session should recess no later than Tuesday, 17 December 1996, and close on Monday, 15 September 1997; all Main Committees should start their work as soon as possible and make every effort to complete it by Friday, 29 November 1996; morning meetings should start at 10 a.m. and, as a cost saving measure, every effort should be made to ensure that the afternoon meetings adjourn by 6 p.m., and that no meetings should be held on weekends.
General Committee – 1c – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
The Committee endorsed the Secretary-General’s suggestion that the general debate should begin on Monday, 23 September, and close on Friday, 11 October, and that the list of speakers in that debate should be closed on Wednesday, 25 September, at 6 p.m. It decided that past practices should be followed concerning such matters as explanations of vote, right of reply, length of statements, records of meetings, reproduction of statements in the Main Committees and limitation of concluding statements.
The Committee recommended that the Assembly should adopt the suggested format for commemorative meetings, including limiting each statement to 15 minutes. It also endorsed the suggestion of the Secretary-General that observances and commemorative meetings take place, as far as possible, immediately following the general debate. The Committee also drew the Assembly’s attention to the recommendations of the Committee on Conferences regarding special conferences.
The Committee also decided to draw the Assembly’s attention to the recommendations by the Committee on Conferences that the following subsidiary organs be authorized to meet during the fifty-first session: the Committee on Conferences; Committee on Relations with the Host Country; Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian Peoples; Executive Board of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); and the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
As had been the practice in previous years, the agenda items on the “question of the Malagasy islands of the Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India” and the “question of East Timor” were deferred until the Assembly’s next session.
In other action this morning, the Committee recommended that the Assembly hold a special commemorative meeting marking the fiftieth anniversary of the operations of UNICEF on Wednesday, 11 December.
The report of the General Committee is scheduled to be taken up by the Assembly at 10 a.m. Friday, 20 September.
General Committee Work Programme
The General Committee met this morning to consider the organization of work for the fifty-first session of the General Assembly. It was expected to recommend a provisional agenda for the Assembly’s session and the allocation of agenda items to the six Main Committees.
The Committee had before it a memorandum by the Secretary-General (document A/BUR/51/1) which lists 163 items proposed for inclusion in the agenda. The memorandum also reviews the past procedures of the Assembly and past decisions dealing with the organization of its work.
Six new items have been proposed for inclusion on the agenda, among them the consideration of the inability of the people of Taiwan, Republic of China, to participate in the activities of the United Nations, as a result of Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), which recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations.
Also proposed for inclusion are the consideration by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of the legality of nuclear weapons; the question of the elaboration of an international convention against organized transnational crime; and the elimination of coercive economic measures to apply political and economic pressures.
Other new items proposed for inclusion in the agenda deal with observer status of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and with financing of the United Nations Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH).
Statements
Chairman of the General Committee and President of the General Assembly RAZALI ISMAIL (Malaysia) at the opening of the meeting emphasized the absolute necessity for starting and ending meetings on time. He called for a new spirit of efficiency and punctuality. It was unacceptable for money to be wasted by the Assembly at the current juncture by an inefficient use of services. While acknowledging the importance of the work of General Committee, he also suggested a need to streamline in the future the procedures of the Committee.
Action on Provisional Agenda
During action on the provisional agenda, the representative of the Netherlands said item 55 on launching of global negotiations on international economic cooperation for development had been on the agenda for quite some time and was covered by other agenda items, such as 98 (b) on an agenda for development. He called for deleting the item and focusing the work on the issue under 98 (b).
General Committee – 6 – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
The CHAIRMAN called for consultations with the creators of the agenda item and the Committee agreed to consider consolidating the item for the fifty-second session.
The representative of Niger, speaking on item 92, on the question of the Malagasy islands, asked that the item be deferred to the fifty-second session.
The representative of the Netherlands, associating his Government with Madagascar and France, supported the proposal of Niger.
The Committee recommended deferral of the item until the fifty-second session of the Assembly and that it be included in its provisional agenda.
The representative of the Netherlands pointed out that the Secretary- General in his report on the work of the Organization indicated that the last two rounds of negotiations between Portugal and Indonesia had focused on short-term issues on the question of East Timor. Talks were continuing. The Secretary-General, Indonesia and Portugal should be allowed more time to continue their ongoing dialogue.
The representative of the Philippines supported the proposal of the Netherlands. Despite differences the two Governments were carrying out productive talks. The item should be deferred to the next session.
The Committee then recommended the deferral of item 93 to the fifty- second session of the Assembly.
The representative of the Netherlands requested that consideration should be given to future deletion of item 95 on the question of the composition of the relevant organs of the United Nations in the interests of streamlining the work of the Assembly.
On item 116 on programme planning, the representative of Cuba said the item should be pursued by the Assembly in each one of the Main Committees and not solely in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). The item should be allocated to allow a broad debate on the subject.
The representative of the United States said the suggestion was out of order and was not a useful idea.
The representative of Zimbabwe said the input of all the Committees would be useful on the agenda item.
The CHAIRMAN said the views put forward by the representatives would be taken into account. The item had been recommended for inclusion in the agenda.
General Committee – 7 – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
As the Committee turned to the consideration of the inclusion of new items, the representative of Sweden noted that Sweden and 10 other States had proposed the inclusion of a new item on granting observer status to Interpol. Interpol was an intergovernmental organization which fulfilled the requirements for observer status. The work of Interpol was relevant to the United Nations in a number of fields related to crime prevention. Granting Interpol observer status would support international efforts towards crime prevention.
Consideration of Agenda Item Concerning Taiwan, Republic of China
Regarding the inclusion of agenda item 159 of the provisional agenda relating to Taiwan, the representative of Solomon Islands said resolution 2758 (XXVI), which recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations, had been adopted 25 years ago. That resolution reflected the language of the cold war. Today, a new age had developed that was founded on democracy and universality. In that spirit, Solomon Islands recommended the inclusion of the new item entitled “Consideration of the exceptional situation of the inability, resulting from General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), of the 21.3 million people on Taiwan, Republic of China, to participate in the activities of the United Nations”.
Taiwan had developed into a thriving democracy and it aided development in countries throughout the world, he continued. Officials of the Government of Taiwan had pledged themselves to the peaceful reunification of Taiwan, Republic of China, and the People’s Republic of China. However, negotiations towards that goal would take time, during which the people of Taiwan would be deprived of representation in Taiwan and would deprive the United Nations of the potential contribution that Taiwan could make to the Organization. The inclusion of the new item on the agenda would allow for a contribution by Taiwan to the United Nations during an interim period of negotiations.
Noting the lengthy list of speakers on the subject, the CHAIRMAN counselled the Committee on the need to limit discussion to the issue of inclusion. He acknowledged the significance of the issue, but reminded the Committee of the need to proceed with its work.
The representative of China said a very small number of countries, disregarding the norms of international law and the resolutions of the Assembly, had once again put forward the proposal on the so-called Taiwan’s “participation in the United Nations”, despite its repeated rejection by the General Committee. The proposal was a brazen attempt to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” in the United Nations, which constituted a serious encroachment upon China’s sovereignty and a gross interference in its internal affairs. He expressed his country’s “strong condemnation and utmost indignation” and firmly opposed inclusion of the item in the agenda of the Assembly.
General Committee – 8 – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
He went on to say that Taiwan had been a part of Chinese territory since ancient times. The 159 countries that had established diplomatic relations with China had all recognized that there was but one China in the world, that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole legal government representing China as a whole and its people and that Taiwan was an inalienable part of China. Twenty-five years ago the Assembly adopted by an overwhelming majority its resolution 2758 which clearly recognized that “representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council”. The proponents of the proposal have claimed that resolution 2758 was a product of the cold war. In fact, the resolution had redressed an historical error caused by the cold war and settled once and for all the question of China’s representation at the United Nations.
He said the two sides of the Taiwan Straits had been in a state of temporary separation since 1949 for well-known reasons. However, Taiwan’s status as a province of China had never changed. The Government of the People’s Republic of China had never given up its jurisdiction over Taiwan. The recent elections or any other activities carried out in that province were activities at the local level and could never be used as the basis to split the country into separate regimes.
Taiwan, therefore, had no qualifications whatsoever to join in whatever form the United Nations or any intergovernmental international organizations of the United Nations system represented by sovereign States, he continued. The question of Taiwan was purely an internal affair of China, which would be settled by the Chinese people themselves. The proponents of the proposal distort the meaning of preventive diplomacy and use it as a pretext for their dual recognition activities aimed at splitting China.
Dialogue between the two sides of the Straits could only be resumed on the basis of the “one China” principle and when the Taiwan authorities desisted from secessionist activities, he said. A small number of countries had in recent years abetted those secessionist activities. He advised those countries “to rein in at the brink of the precipice and refrain from further erroneous moves against the international law and the United Nations Charter”. He reaffirmed the consistent position of his Government on talks for peaceful reunification between the two sides of the Straits. He called on the Committee to continue its support of his country’s position and firmly reject the inclusion of the proposed agenda item.
The representative of Burundi proposed, in the interests of pragmatism and since the sponsors had made statements along with the most concerned party — China — that all statements beyond that be shortened.
General Committee – 9 – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
In response to a request by the Chairman, the Committee agreed to an omnibus reading of the list of sponsors and non-sponsors of the proposed agenda item which were not members of the Committee, in order to allow them to address the Committee on the issue. That procedure was not to be considered a precedent.
The representative of Chile said the question of Taiwan was an internal question for the people of China. It would be inappropriate for the Assembly to consider the proposed agenda item.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said there now existed no valid reason to deny Taiwan access to the United Nations. The structures of the Organization were becoming more open and accountable. The time had come to consider the achievements of the past and the realities of the future, according to the Secretary-General. The item should be included to allow Taiwan access to the United Nations.
The representative of Nicaragua supported the inclusion of the item. Support for the creation of an ad hoc committee on the question of Taiwan was an expression of support for a spirit of universality and the peaceful settlement of disputes. The people of Taiwan should have representation in the world community and be allowed to make their due contribution to that community. Taiwan had a democratically elected government that had the capacity to join the international community. Resolution 2758 of 1971 should be reviewed in the light of present circumstances by an ad hoc committee.
The representative of Pakistan said that proposals on inclusion of an item on Taiwan in the past three years went against the expressed will of the Assembly that settled the representation of China 25 years ago. He supported the statement of China on the subject. The co-sponsors of the resolution had used the model of parallel representation as an argument. It did not apply to a situation where only one China had been recognized by the Assembly. It was an interference in the internal affairs of the People’s Republic of China. The people of China should make their own decisions on the internal affair of Taiwan.
The representative of Brazil said the question of the representation of China at the United Nations had been settled. The new item should not be included on the agenda.
The representative of Cuba said the matter of representation of China had been settled definitively. The question of Taiwan was an internal matter and the inclusion of the item on the agenda would be a violation of China’s sovereignty.
The representative of Peru said the question of Taiwan was a matter under the authority of China. His country was not in agreement with the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
General Committee – 10 – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
The representative of Swaziland said he hoped a solution could be found to the matter. His country supported the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of Kuwait said the matter of China’s representation had been settled and any attempt to include the item on the agenda would violate an earlier decision of the Assembly. The item should not be included on the agenda.
The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said that it was the view of his Government, one in line with the vast majority of Member States, that the People’s Republic of China was the only representative of all the people of China. His Government was opposed to the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of Egypt said the vast majority of Member States, including his country, did not support the inclusion of the item on the agenda. The historic resolution adopted by the Assembly 25 years ago had determined that the only representative of China would be the People’s Republic of China.
The representative of Iraq said his delegation supported the position of China on the question. Inclusion of the matter would violate the earlier decision of the Assembly.
The representative of Senegal said that Taiwan, Republic of China, could be proud that it was an economic and social world leader, and that its leaders had developed a state of law. His Government had resumed relationships with the Republic of China, believing that the Republic of China should regain its place in the family of nations. He supported inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of the Niger said her country was not in a position to support inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said the representation of China to the United Nations had been resolved and he was opposed to the inclusion of the new item on the agenda.
The representative of the Kazakstan said his delegation did not support inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of Belize said that Taiwan had a population larger than 141 Member States. In the Organization’s time of financial austerity, each national group should shoulder part of the burden to contribute to the economic welfare of the planet. Denying Taiwan that duty and denying the international community the reciprocal opportunity appeared to be self- defeating. It would be an act of realism for the Assembly at least to study the matter of the participation of an entity like Taiwan. Belize did not
General Committee – 11 – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
support any impairment or diminution of the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China.
The representative of Myanmar said his delegation supported the position of China and was opposed to the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of the Gambia said the 21 million people of Taiwan should be represented in the activities of the United Nations. The promotion of peace and security in that region of the world and greater discussion and dialogue should be encouraged.
The representative of Nepal said inclusion of the item would undermine a decision already taken by the Assembly, as well as principles of the Charter. It would be an interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign State. The representation of China had been decided once and for all by the Assembly.
The representative of Burkina Faso supported the inclusion of the item. The matter did not require a decision on the substance. It was only a request for inclusion of the subject for later consideration by an ad hoc committee.
The CHAIRMAN appealed to the Committee to come to closure on the item, as the Committee appeared to be ready to make a decision.
The representative of Swaziland suggested that the other delegations simply state their positions in support of or in opposition to inclusion of the item and submit their statements for inclusion in the record of the meeting.
The representatives of the Philippines, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Saint Lucia, Malawi, Guatemala, Central African Republic, Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and El Salvador spoke in support of including the proposed agenda item.
Speaking in opposition to inclusion to the proposed agenda item were the representatives of Algeria, Zambia, Cyprus, Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Libya, Syria, Mongolia, Iran, Mauritania, Mexico, Burundi, Sudan, Turkey, Angola, Botswana, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, Belarus, Ghana and Afghanistan.
The Committee decided not to recommend inclusion of the item on Taiwan, Republic of China, in the agenda of the fifty-first session.
The representative of Poland recommended inclusion of the new item entitled “Question of elaboration of an international convention against organized transnational crime”. The best measure to combat international crime would be an international convention to combat organized crime. International legislation was too important a topic not to be considered independently.
General Committee – 12 – Press Release GA/9092 1st Meeting (AM) 18 September 1996
The representatives of Chile, Latvia, Honduras and Paraguay supported the inclusion of the item.
The Committee decided to recommend the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of Mexico, concerning Committee review of the rights of the child, proposed that the report of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on the rights of the child be presented directly to the plenary and then be sent for further consideration in the Second and Third Committees.
That proposal was accepted by the Committee.
* *** *
17 September 1997
Press Release
GA/9299
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 156 ITEMS FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGENDA, WILL MEET TO CONSIDER THREE REMAINING ITEMS
Approves New Items on Administrative Tribunal, Negotiating Principles; Item on Taiwan, Republic of China, Not Recommended, After 47-Speaker Debate
The General Committee this afternoon recommended 156 items for inclusion on the General Assembly’s agenda for its fifty-second session. It will meet again tomorrow to consider three pending items and to recommend allocation of the items approved among the Assembly’s six Main Committees and its plenary.
Among new items recommended was one on amending the statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and another on draft guiding principles for international negotiations. It recommended that the Assembly retain on its agenda an item on “the situation on the occupied territories of Croatia”.
The Committee also recommended that the closing date of the Assembly’s current session should be no later than Tuesday, 16 December, and that all of its Main Committees should try to complete their work by Friday, 28 November.
However, the Committee decided not to recommend that the Assembly consider a proposed item on the “need to review General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971 owing to the fundamental change in the international situation and the coexistence of two governments across the Taiwan Strait”. That decision was taken after a debate involving 47 speakers.
Speakers in support of the proposed item said that the 21 million people of Taiwan should be represented in the United Nations and in the international community. Others, speaking against the proposal, said they continued to support resolution 2758, which had affirmed that the People’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative of the people of China.
The representative of China said the proposed item seriously encroach on China’s sovereignty and grossly interfered in its internal affairs. It wilfully trampled upon the purposes and principles of the Charter and of resolution 2758, distorting the facts in an attempt to carry out activities aimed at splitting a sovereign State and creating “two Chinas”.
General Committee – 1a – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
The representative of the Solomon Islands, a co-sponsor of the proposal, said the request by the Republic of China on Taiwan for participation in the Organization had been unjustly denied. In view of fundamental changes in the international situation, his country had proposed inclusion of the item, with the support of 14 Member States. The Assembly should consider rescinding resolution 2758, which reflected the ideological excesses of the cold war.
Statements on the proposed item were also made by the representatives of Honduras, Indonesia, Senegal, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Kuwait, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Swaziland, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Argentina, Afghanistan, Liberia, Nicaragua, Chad, Bangladesh, United Republic of Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Bahamas, Papua New Guinea, Dominica, Mongolia, Grenada, Colombia, Libya, Pakistan, Myanmar, Iran, Guinea-Bissau, Syria, Russian Federation, Cuba, Italy, Egypt, Cyprus, Zambia, Malawi, El Salvador, Brazil, Belarus, Mexico and Ireland.
As in previous years, the Committee recommended that the items on the question of the Malagasy islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India and on the question of East Timor be deferred to the Assembly’s next session. It also approved inclusion of a footnote stating that the Assembly would consider the question of the International Conference on the Financing of Developing Countries at its current session.
Statements were also made by the representatives of Togo, Greece, Egypt, Croatia and the Russian Federation.
The General Committee will meet again at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, 18 September, to conclude its consideration of the proposed agenda for the current session.
General Committee Work Programme
The General Committee met this afternoon to consider the organization of work for the fifty-second session of the General Assembly. It is expected to consider the provisional agenda for the Assembly’s session and make recommendations regarding the inclusion of new items and the allocation of agenda items to the six Main Committees. The General Committee comprises the Assembly’s President, Vice-Presidents and Committee Chairmen.
The Committee had before it a memorandum by the Secretary-General (document A/BUR/52/1) containing the 162-item provisional agenda for the Assembly’s current session. The memorandum also reviews the past procedures of the Assembly and decisions dealing with the organization of its work, including the recently adopted resolution 51/241 of 31 July entitled “Strengthening of the United Nations system”.
The item on United Nations reform measures and proposals, which appears on the agenda of the fifty-first Assembly’s session, is provisionally on the agenda for the current session. Under that item, the Assembly would consider the Secretary-General’s wide-ranging proposals to reform the Organization, which he presented to Member States on 16 July.
The reform proposals, entitled “Renewing the United Nations: A Programme of Reform”, address such organizational questions as the establishment of a new Secretariat leadership and management structure, including creation of a post of Deputy Secretary-General, the consolidation of United Nations operations at the country level, and the need for a thorough overhaul of human resources policies and practices. The report suggests avenues to streamline the work of intergovernmental bodies, particularly the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, and proposes methods to bring financial solvency to the Organization, including through creation of a revolving credit fund.
The provisional agenda cites five new items for inclusion on the agenda. They are: draft guiding principles for international negotiations (item 157); amendment to article 13 of the statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (item 158); need to review General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971 owing to the fundamental change in the international situation and to the coexistence of two Governments across the Taiwan Strait (item 159); and observer status for the Andean Community in the General Assembly (item 162). There is also a request before the Committee for an additional new item entitled “Towards a Culture of Peace”.
The proposed item on draft guiding principles for international negotiations was proposed for inclusion in a letter by the Permanent Representative of Mongolia (document A/52/141). In it, he stresses that the adoption of such rules would promote justice and fairness in negotiations that
General Committee – 3 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
at times fall victim to power politics. It is proposed that the item be added as a sub-item of item 48, on the United Nations Decade of International Law.
The proposed item on the situation with respect to “The coexistence of two Governments across the Taiwan Straight” is contained in a letter from the representatives of Burkina Faso, Dominica, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Nicaragua, Senegal, Solomon Islands and Swaziland (document A/52/143).
In an explanatory memorandum annexed to the letter, the representatives urge the United Nations to consider seriously the justification for the continued exclusion of the Republic of China on Taiwan from membership in the Organization. They call on the Assembly to re-examine and rescind its 1971 resolution 2758 (XXVI), by which the Republic of China on Taiwan was excluded from the United Nations, in order to restore without delay to the 21.5 million people of the Republic of China on Taiwan the lawful right to participate in all activities within the United Nations system.
The memorandum stresses that resolution 2758 (XXVI) violates the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; that the Republic of China on Taiwan fully meets the requirements for United Nations membership; and that parallel participation in the United Nations by the two sides of the Taiwan Strait would be conducive to regional security and world peace.
The request for inclusion of the item on a culture of peace, for consideration by the Assembly in plenary session, is contained in a letter from Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Senegal and Venezuela (document A/52/191). They state that the Assembly examined the question at its two previous sessions in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) under the item entitled “Human rights questions”. Pursuant to resolution 51/101, entitled “Culture of Peace”, the Secretary-General, in cooperation with the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), will report on activities within UNESCO’s transdisciplinary project on that subject. That report will also present elements for a draft provisional declaration and programme of action on a culture of peace.
The request for the inclusion of the item on observer status for the Andean Community in the Assembly is contained in a letter by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, member States of the Community (document A/52/232). It states that the Andean Community is a free trade area without any kind of tariff restrictions. Its objectives include promoting balanced and harmonious development of the member countries on the basis of equity, through economic and social integration and cooperation; encouraging gradual formation of a Latin American common market; and helping to reduce external vulnerability and improve its member countries’ position in
General Committee – 4 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
international trade. Those achievements are expected to result in a steady improvement in the standard of living of the inhabitants of the subregion.
Also before the General Committee is a request by Croatia for non- inclusion in the agenda of provisional item 96, entitled “The situation in the occupied territories of Croatia” (document A/52/231). Its request refers to previous recommendations by the Assembly on the elimination of items which have lost their urgency or relevance. “With the establishment of new, democratically elected local government in the region and the ongoing phasing- in of Croatian institutions throughout the region, the occupation of the last remaining territory in Croatia has ended”, Croatia’s letter states. Stating that the reintegration of that territory has been largely completed, it holds that there is no need for the Assembly to consider the item any further.
Statements on Provisional Agenda
The representative of Togo drew attention to the proposed item on the question of the Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India. He said that, following consultations with the representatives of France and Madagascar, they wished to recommend that the item be deferred until the Assembly’s next session.
The representative of Greece supported the proposal.
The Committee decided to recommend that the item be deferred and that it be included on the provisional agenda of the Assembly’s fifty-third session.
Question of East Timor
The representative of Egypt cited a recent report of the Secretary- General informing the Assembly of his intention to facilitate the tripartite dialogue between Indonesia and Portugal on the question of East Timor. The item on East Timor should therefore be deferred to the Assembly’s next session.
The representative of Greece supported the proposal.
The Committee decided to recommend that the item on the question of East Timor should be deferred to the Assembly’s fifty-third session.
Occupied Territories of Croatia
The representative of Croatia said the rationalization of the work of the General Assembly was a common goal of the Organization. The Secretary- General had recently made proposals to streamline the work of the Organization, and it was Croatia’s aim to constructively contribute to that
General Committee – 5 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
goal. The item on “the situation in the occupied territories of Croatia” should be deferred to the Assembly’s next session, as there had been no discussion on it during the Assembly’s two prior sessions and it was no longer relevant to the situation in Croatia. However, Croatia remained flexible to other methods of dealing with the issue.
The representative of the Russian Federation said it was premature to say that the item had lost its relevance or lacked urgency. United Nations operations were continuing to peacefully integrate the regions in question, and quite a few problems remained in that effort. In fact, reintegration of the populations had hardly begun. The item should therefore be kept on the Assembly’s agenda for the current session.
The Committee agreed to include the item on the agenda of the Assembly’s current session.
Macroeconomic Policy Questions
The representative of Venezuela said the proposed agenda of the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) had been the subject of exhaustive review. He drew attention to its item on macroeconomic policy and its sub-item entitled, “Financing of development, including net transfer of resources between developing and developed countries”. In connection with that sub- item, he said a footnote should be included on the Assembly’s agenda stating that the question of the International Conference on the Financing of Developing Countries would be considered at the Assembly’s current session.
The Committee agreed to include the footnote, as proposed by the representative of Venezuela.
Draft Principles for International Negotiations
The representative of Mongolia requested that the item on draft guiding principles for international negotiations be included in the provisional agenda as a sub-item of item 148 on the United Nations Decade of International Law.
The Committee decided to recommend to the Assembly that it include the item on its agenda.
Statute of Administrative Tribunal
The Committee decided to recommend to the Assembly that it include on its agenda the item entitled, “Amendment to article 13 of the statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal”.
General Committee – 6 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
Review of Resolution 2758 (XXVI)
The representative of the Solomon Islands said his Government had repeatedly called on the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China to reopen negotiations to resolve the issue of the exclusion of the Republic of China from the United Nations. Both parties had offered proposals that were similar, but there had been no decision on negotiations. Bringing about such negotiations would be a long and difficult process.
In view of fundamental changes in the international situation, the Solomon Islands had proposed the inclusion of the agenda item, and 14 Member States had supported that request, he said. The Republic of China’s request for participation in the Organization had been unjustly denied. The Member States which supported the proposal sought the reunification of China and had acted to prevent a slide towards armed conflict.
Resolution 2758 (XXVI) reflected the ideological excesses of the cold war, he said. It was poorly drafted and stripped the Republic of China of its rights. The Assembly should review the resolution and consider revoking it — there was precedent for that. The Republic of China was a major donor of development aid and maintained diplomatic relations with 30 countries, yet its offers of development aid had been rejected by the Organization because of its status. A review of resolution 2758 would represent an important start in reopening negotiations; it would be the Assembly’s contribution to resolving the situation between the two parties.
The People’s Republic of China’s position was that it supported reunification of the “motherland”, he said. Citing what he called a “threat by a Permanent Representative of the United Nations”, he said there was no place for threats at the end of the cold war. China’s actions regarding Taiwan had included the use of its veto in the Security Council on matters which involved the Republic of China, as well as recent actions regarding the conference on the Panama Canal. Would the Assembly continue to remain silent in the face of such actions and threats on the part of China? It should reply with “a resounding no”, he said.
The representative of China said a very small number of countries, after having been defeated for four consecutive years, had once again put forward the proposal on Taiwan’s so-called “return to the United Nations”, requesting a review of resolution 2758 (XXVI). Those countries were acting in disregard of the norms of international law, the United Nations Charter and a resolution of the General Assembly. Their proposal distorts facts in an attempt to make use of the United Nations to carry out activities aimed at splitting a sovereign State and creating “two Chinas”. The Chinese Government expressed its strong indignation and condemnation of that proposal, which not only
General Committee – 7 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
seriously encroached upon its sovereignty and grossly interfered in its internal affairs, but also wilfully trampled upon the purposes and principles of the Charter and of resolution 2758.
Taiwan had been a part of the Chinese territory since ancient times, he said. The 159 countries that had established diplomatic relations with China recognized that there was but one China, that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole legal Government representing China in its entirety, and that Taiwan was part of China. At its twenty-sixth session, the Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, adopted resolution 2758, which recognized that “the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China were the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that it was one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The resolution reaffirmed the “one China” principle and settled, once and for all, the question of China’s representation at the United Nations.
He went on to say that the question of Taiwan fell entirely within China’s internal affairs and that it could only be settled by the Chinese people. To end the state of separation between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits and achieve national reunification, Chinese President Jiang Zemin had put forward an eight-point proposal on 30 January 1995; it dealt with developing relations across the Straits and advancing the process of peaceful reunification. On 12 September, President Zemin further stated, at a session of the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, that the concept of “one country, two systems” was a basic policy for the advancement of national reunification and that the return of Hong Kong would create favorable conditions for the settlement of the Taiwan question. President Zemin appealed that, as a first step, the two sides should hold discussions on ending the state of hostility under the “one China principle” and come to an agreement. He also suggested that they should jointly commit to safeguard China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and plan for the future development of relations across the Straits.
Those proposals took into consideration the long-term interest of the entire Chinese people and also accommodated and safeguarded the interests of the people of Taiwan, he said. However, the Taiwan authorities had intensified their separatist activities aimed at creating “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan”. Those activities included abetting a small number of countries in bringing up, time and again, the proposal on the so-called “Taiwan’s representation” in the United Nations. His Government had always respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other Member States and had never done anything to hurt any country, including the co-sponsors of the proposal. China hoped that they would join the overwhelming majority of Member States in safeguarding the authority of the United Nations Charter and the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and return to the basis for
General Committee – 8 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
normal relations among its Member States.
The representative of Honduras said that Assembly resolution 2758 prevented the 21 million inhabitants of Taiwan from enjoying the rights of members in the international community. The absence of Taiwan from the United Nations meant that the situation was an exception, and it should be considered a serious matter to find a just solution to the problem. There were precedents for the Assembly to review its own decisions. The matter should be examined because of the new situation in international relations and the reality that existed across the Taiwan Straits. Such a review was important to promote a climate conducive to possible unification. The citizens of a sovereign State should not be deprived of the just aspiration to participate in international organizations.
The representative of Indonesia said his Government had adopted the “one China” policy, recognizing that the People’s Republic of China was the legitimate authority governing the entire territory of China. In its resolution 2758, the Assembly decided to restore to the People’s Republic of China all its rights and accorded recognition to the representative of its Government as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations. Attempts to seek the participation of the other entity representing China or other parts of China in the United Nations would be contrary to the Charter. Indonesia saw no need to review resolution 2758.
The representative of Senegal said that, in view of the fundamental changes in the international situation, he supported the efforts of the people of the Republic of China to take their seat in the United Nations and to participate in the work of its specialized agencies. It was anachronistic that the Republic of China, as a major economic power in the world and with a commitment to democracy, should be left out of the assembly of nations. The history of the United Nations had shown that two Governments could represent a people divided by the vicissitudes of history, as in the case of North and South Korea. He insisted on the need for a broad debate on the issue and supported the arguments put forward by the representatives of the Solomon Islands and Honduras for inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said the question of the representative of China in the United Nations had already been settle by resolution 2758. The legitimate and inalienable rights of the People’s Republic of China to membership to the bodies of the United Nations had already been established. Any action to take up this question would not be in keeping with that resolution. His Government opposed the inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Kuwait said the issue of Taiwan and its participation in the United Nations had already been settled by resolution 2758. Any attempt to include the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda
General Committee – 9 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
represented a flagrant violation of that resolution and of China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The representative of Iraq said the Assembly, at its twenty-sixth session, had adopted resolution 2758 by an overwhelming majority. The request for the inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda violated that resolution and interfered with the internal affairs of a sovereign State. His Government was firmly opposed to inclusion of the item.
The representative of Kazakhstan said his Government recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole Government of China. Taiwan was part of the territory of China. Kazakhstan opposed inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Kenya said only one China should be represented in the United Nations. Kenya strongly opposed the inclusion of the item in the Assembly’s agenda. It was only as one China that the aspirations of the Chinese people would be fully respected. It was hoped that the Chinese people would amicably resolve their internal matters on their own.
The representative of Swaziland said it was inaccurate to say that the inclusion of the proposed item was supported by a very small number of countries. His Government fully associated itself with the call to review Assembly resolution 2758 owing to the fundamental change in the international situation and to the coexistence of two Governments across the Taiwan Strait. The United Nations could “provide a cure to the ills of resolution 2758” and the plight of a country and people who were desirous of leading a normal life.
The representative of Nepal said that inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda would undermine its decision 26 years ago and would also represent interference in the internal affairs of a Member State. The question of China’s representation had been decided by resolution 2758. Nepal rejected the request for inclusion of the item.
The representative of Burkina Faso said he had requested inclusion of the item, along with a number of other delegations, owing to the fundamental change in the international situation over the past 26 years. The Republic of China was already an actor on the international scene and it was asking that its status be recognized. The Assembly should examine the reality of the situation.
The representative of Gambia expressed support for the statement by the Solomon Islands. The Republic of China had a contribution to make to the international community and the United Nations. It was time to re-evaluate and change resolution 2758. The Republic of China deserved just and fair treatment. Gambia had therefore requested inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
General Committee – 10 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
The representative of Argentina said his country had supported the adoption of resolution 2758 and was one of the first States to restore relations with the People’s Republic of China. The question of the status of Taiwan was an internal affair of the people of China. Argentina did not favour inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Afghanistan said the question under discussion had been raised over a number of years and had been defeated. The revocation of the earlier status of the Republic of China had been a very important step. The proposed agenda item encroached on the principle of “one China”. The “two China” policy could be dangerous to the Organization. The people of mainland China and Taiwan were the same people. The situation could be resolved by the idea of “one country, two systems”, proposed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China. Member States should reject inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Liberia said that for several years, like-minded Member States had asked that a fresh look be taken at the matter of the continued exclusion of the Republic of China on Taiwan from the United Nations. His Government was a co-sponsor of the current request for inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda. The time was opportune for Assembly resolution 2758 to be reviewed and updated, to end the isolation of the Republic of China on Taiwan from the United Nations and its agencies. His Government respected the People’s Republic of China and had no interest in interfering in its internal affairs. In the post-cold-war era and pending the reunification of China, every effort should be made to ensure that the United Nations was no longer constrained by ideological considerations.
The representative of Nicaragua said a state was an entity which should be recognized by law. A state had sufficient economic power and was energetic enough to have international relations. A state should also be sovereign and independent and it must have a peopled territory or governmental authority. The Republic of China on Taiwan had all the elements of a legitimately constituted state. In addition, the Republic of China on Taiwan had completely complied with international law and conducted diplomatic relations with others States.
Nicaragua asked that the proposed item be included on the Assembly’s agenda. The full participation of Taiwan in the United Nations would create benefits for the United Nations in promoting peace internationally. It would also make contributions in such areas as the environment and international drug trafficking. Any other solution would run counter to the principle of universal representation in the United Nations.
General Committee – 11 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
The representative of Chad said the United Nations must be a reflection of the world and that the international community must seize the opportunity to achieve the ideal of universality. Yet since 1971, the Republic of China on Taiwan had been excluded from the United Nations. The Republic of China on Taiwan met the characteristics of a state as described in the Charter. His Government therefore supported inclusion of the item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Bangladesh said that resolution 2758 had resolved the question of the membership of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. There was no further need to include such an item on the Assembly’s agenda. > The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said he opposed the request to reopen consideration of resolution 2758. That resolution which put an end to more than 30 years of debate about China’s representation at the United Nations, remained relevant. It had also confirmed the just claim of the People’s Republic of China to China’s seat in the United Nations. Political problems within any territorial jurisdiction were matters for the parties themselves to resolve peacefully. The international community should not aggravate such problems by encouraging dismemberment. It should promote dialogue.
The representative of Sri Lanka said there was only one China. By resolution 2758, the People’s Republic of China became the sole representative of the people of China. Sri Lanka had voted in favour of that resolution and opposed the request for inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Sudan said the proposal now being considered had kept the General Committee busy unnecessarily for the past four years and it had been rejected each year. The proposal contravened the issue of sovereignty. Sudan continued to support resolution 2758 and recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of the people of China in the United Nations. It opposed the inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of the Bahamas said his country recognized one China and the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of the people of China. It would not support inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Papua New Guinea said the political differences
General Committee – 12 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
between the two parties should not be used to prevent Taipei from playing a meaningful role in promoting international development and technical cooperation for the mutual benefit of all peoples. There was merit in the bold attempt to review the 1971 resolution. The option of allowing Taiwan’s parallel representation in the United Nations, within terms agreed to by both parties, could facilitate the process towards a peaceful resolution of the question and the eventual unification of the Chinese people in accordance with their aspirations.
The representative of Dominica called for a review of resolution 2758 with a view to admitting the Republic of China on Taiwan to the United Nations. The Republic of China on Taiwan adequately met the conditions for membership in the Organization in every respect. Over several decades, it had demonstrated a remarkable willingness and ability to accept and carry out the obligations of the Charter. Those who opposed its membership had advanced one legal argument, which stated that United Nations resolutions were meant to be followed and that resolution 2758 had settled the question of the United Nations representation of China for all time. However, that view ignored the fact that all legislation was the product of the prevailing factors at the time and that the resolution in question had been adopted at the height of the cold war. In view of the changes in international relations following the ending of the cold war, resolution 2758 should be reviewed during the Assembly’s current session.
The representative of Mongolia said his Government saw no valid reason for the proposed item to be included on the agenda of the Assembly’s current or future sessions. Resolution 2758 had already settled the question of China’s representation in the United Nations.
The representative of Grenada said Taiwan was a peace-loving and democratic country which was willing and able to carry out the obligations of the United Nations Charter. Consideration should be given to its membership in the United Nations. The Assembly should review resolution 2758 during its current session.
The representative of Colombia said resolution 2758 established that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China to the United Nations. Colombia opposed inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda, as it violated the Charter. The future of China must be decided by the Chinese people themselves.
The representative of Libya said his Government opposed the proposed item on a review of resolution 2758, which had been adopted by an overwhelming majority and was based on historic and political justifications. Any questioning of that resolution would weaken the Assembly’s resolutions. Taiwan was an integral part of China; inclusion of the proposed agenda item would trample the prestige of the Assembly.
General Committee – 13 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
The representative of Pakistan said his Government firmly held that China was a sovereign Member State of the United Nations and that Taiwan therefore had no right to be a member of the United Nations. Pakistan opposed inclusion of the proposed item. The request for its inclusion only resulted in a tremendous waste of the Assembly’s time and resources and sought to undermine the Charter of the United Nations.
The representative of Myanmar said his Government recognized the existence of only one China, and Taiwan as a part of China. China’s representation at the United Nations had been settled by the adoption of resolution 2758. He therefore opposed inclusion of the proposed item in the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Iran said he supported the position of the Permanent Representative of China and opposed the inclusion of the proposed item.
The representative of Guinea-Bissau said his country supported inclusion of the proposed item. More than 20 million people of Taiwan lived on a distinct territory and had built a modern democratic society. The United Nations should no longer ignore their rights. That situation should be corrected so that Taiwan could enjoy international recognition. The proposed item should be included on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Syria said resolution 2758 had established the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of people of that country. The request for the inclusion of the proposed item was not in line with the Charter or with that resolution. Any attempt to create two Chinas was a distortion of fact and an attempt to spark cold war issues. The proposed item should not be included on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his Government’s support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China remained unchanged. Resolution 2758 adequately settled the problem of the representation of China and did not require revision. The Russian Federation opposed the proposal to include the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Cuba said the question of China’s representation had been resolved 26 years ago by resolution 2758, which made clear that the People’s Republic of China was the sole and legitimate representative of the Chinese people. Cuba was opposed to inclusion of the proposed item.
The representative of Italy said his Government was strongly attached to the principle of “one China”. It was the responsibility of the Chinese Government to pursue dialogue for peaceful solutions in its internal affairs. The proposed item should not be included on the Assembly’s agenda.
General Committee – 14 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
The representative of Egypt said the question of China’s representation had been decided in a final and decisive manner when the Assembly adopted resolution 2758. That matter should not be reconsidered. Egypt opposed inclusion of the proposed item.
The representative of Cyprus said his Government opposed inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda. The question of China’s representation was settled without any ambiguity by the adoption of Assembly resolution 2758.
The representative of Zambia said his Government categorically rejected the notion of Taiwan’s inclusion in the work of the General Assembly. Resolution 2758 had served to put to rest any notion of the existence of “two Chinas”. Taiwan was a province of the People’s Republic of China, and only the Chinese people could resolve the issue of Taiwan.
The representative of Malawi said there had been a fundamental change in the international situation since the adoption of resolution 2758. The discussion of the current proposal was therefore not a waste of time. His Government wished to encourage both sides towards reconciliation and healing. Malawi favoured discussion of the issue in the Assembly and inclusion of the proposed item on its agenda.
The representative of El Salvador said his Government, along with others which supported inclusion of the proposed item, were trying to find a solution to an international problem. By requesting a review of an Assembly resolution, they were attempting to correct the situation by recognizing the rights of the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan. Inclusion of the proposed item did not run counter to the interests of China and the United Nations. The state of international relations had changed since resolution 2758 was adopted; the proposed item should be included on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Brazil said his Government recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China to the United Nations. There was no cause to include the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Belarus said his Government fully supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. Taiwan was an integral part of the territory of China. Belarus opposed the inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Mexico said his Government also supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. Inclusion of the proposed item would not be compatible with interests of the United Nations. Mexico saw no justification for questioning the validity of the decision adopted by the
General Committee – 15 – Press Release GA/9299 1st Meeting (PM) 17 September 1997
Assembly 26 years ago. It therefore rejected the proposal to include the item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The representative of Ireland said his Government was committed to a “one China” policy, with the People’s Republic of China as the sole
representative of the people of China in the United Nations. Ireland opposed inclusion of the proposed item on the Assembly’s agenda.
The Committee decided not to recommend the inclusion of the proposed item on a review of resolution 2758 on the agenda of the Assembly’s current session.
* *** *
11 September 1998
Press Release
GA/9434
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 166-ITEM GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGENDA
The General Committee, in two meetings held today, recommended 166 items for inclusion on the General Assembly’s agenda for its fifty-third session and allocated them among the six Main Committees and the plenary.
The Committee recommended 10 new items. Among those were consideration of the Bethlehem 2000 Project to celebrate the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ and the onset of the millennium, and the World Solar Programme 1996-2005, which involves the contribution of renewable energy sources to sustainable development. The causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa was also included as a new item.
In addition, the Assembly will address the global implications of the Year 2000 date conversion of computers, as well as the issue of observer status in the Assembly for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Association of Caribbean States (ACS). Financing of United Nations missions in the Central African Republic and Sierra Leone will be considered, as will new items on the Joint Inspection Unit and the election of judges to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
As there was no consensus on the issue, the Committee decided not to recommend inclusion of the proposed item that called for a review of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971, which recognized the Government of the Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations. That decision was taken after a debate involving 56 speakers.
Speaking on that issue, the representative of China said raising the question of Taiwan’s representation at the United Nations was “a brazen attempt to challenge the Assembly resolution” and split a sovereign State to create “two Chinas” at the Organization. Assembly resolution 2758 reaffirmed the “one China” principle. By raising the question of the so-called “Taiwan’s membership at the United Nations”, the handful of countries were only moving to severely sabotage the process of the peaceful reunification of China.
General Committee – 1a – Press Release GA/9434 1st and 2nd Meetings (AM, PM) 11 September 1998
However, the representative of Swaziland, one of several speakers in support of the item’s inclusion, said the unparalleled economic and political development of the Republic of China on Taiwan had engendered a strong desire on the part of its people to participate in international activities. They were frustrated by the denial of their fundamental right to participate in the United Nations, he said, noting that the Republic of China on Taiwan, under Article 23 of the Charter, was still recognized as one of the founders of the United Nations. The Republic of China on Taiwan did not intend to engage in a debate over supremacy with the People’s Republic of China, but rather wanted to exist on an equal footing with the People’s Republic of China in the international community.
Many speakers in support of the item’s inclusion cited the Republic of China on Taiwan’s attributes of statehood, such as its major global economy, its democratic Government, its diplomatic relations with many countries and its aid to developing countries. Others, speaking against the proposal, referred to the issue as an internal matter for the Government of China and basically one of territorial integrity.
Statements on the proposed item were also made by the representatives of Senegal, Malawi, Gambia, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Paraguay, Iraq, Burkina Faso, Kuwait, Georgia, Mexico, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe, Honduras, Saint Lucia, Dominica, Chad, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Nicaragua, Chile, Grenada, United Republic of Tanzania, Cyprus, Nepal, Myanmar, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Belarus, Brazil, Djibouti, Russian Federation, Italy, Syria, Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Algeria, Cuba, El Salvador, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Germany, Yemen, Suriname, Uganda, Tunisia, Cameroon, Kenya, Lesotho, and Pakistan.
The Committee also deleted the item on Burundi, as the Assembly had concluded its consideration of the issue in its previous session. Items relating to the Malagasy islands and East Timor were deferred until the next session.
A proposed item on the fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was included as a sub-item under consideration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Further, the Committee changed the wording on the agenda item formerly listed as “Activities of foreign economic interests which impede the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in Territories under colonial domination”. It now reads, “Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories”.
The recess date for the Assembly’s current session was set for 11 December. The Committee also recommended the following closing dates for the Main Committees: First, Fourth, Third and Sixth Committees — 20 November; Second
General Committee – 1b – Press Release GA/9434 1st and 2nd Meetings (AM, PM) 11 September 1998
Committee — 27 November; and Fifth Committee — 4 December. However, the Committee did recommend that the Assembly review its decision taken last year establishing a fixed opening and closing date for General Assembly sessions.
Finally, the Committee authorized the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to meet during the main part of the Assembly’s current session.
Statements were also made by the representatives of the United Kingdom, United States, Armenia, Senegal, Germany, San Marino, Brunei Darussalam, Zimbabwe, Georgia and China.
The General Committee will meet again at a date to be announced.
General Committee Work Programme
The General Committee met this morning to consider the organization of work of the fifty-third session of the General Assembly. Comprising the President of the Assembly, Vice-Presidents and Committee Chairmen, the Committee reviews the provisional agenda for the Assembly’s session and makes recommendations regarding the inclusion of new items and the allocation of agenda items to the six Main Committees.
The Committee had before it a memorandum by the Secretary-General (document A/BUR/53/1 and Add.1) containing the 171-item provisional agenda for the Assembly’s current session. The memorandum also reviews the past procedures of the Assembly and decisions dealing with the organization of its work.
The provisional agenda cites 12 new items for inclusion on the agenda. They are: Bethlehem 2000 (item 160); World Solar Programme 1996-2005 (item 161); observer status for the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) in the General Assembly (item 162); Global implications of the Year 2000 date conversion problem of computers (item 163); Financing of the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (item 164); observer status for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in the General Assembly (item 165); need to review General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971 owing to the fundamental change in the international situation and to the coexistence of two governments across the Taiwan Strait (item 166); financing of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (item 167); fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (item 168); causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (item 169); Joint Inspection Unit (item 170); and electing judges to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (item 171).
Inclusion of the proposed item “Bethlehem 2000” is requested in a letter from the Permanent Representatives of Afghanistan, Cuba, Malta and Senegal (document A/53/141). The Bethlehem 2000 Project has been launched by the Palestinian National Authority to celebrate the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ and the onset of the new millennium. It is envisaged that the commemoration will begin at Christmas 1999 and conclude at Easter 2000. In order to engage the participation of the international community, the Project convened the Bethlehem 2000 Participants Conference in Brussels on 11 and 12 May 1998, in association with the European Commission, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Bank. It is expected that approximately 2 million visitors will visit Bethlehem to honour its legacy and the Project envisages six programme components: events; infrastructure; services; cultural heritage; tourism and private sector development.
General Committee – 3 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
The proposed item entitled “World Solar Programme 1996-2005” was requested in a letter (document A/53/142) from the representatives of China, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Malaysia, Niger, Pakistan, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Zimbabwe. The Programme was adopted by the World Solar Commission in June 1997, using as a basis the outline approved by the World Solar Summit in September 1996 and the commitments made in the Harare Declaration on Solar Energy and Sustainable Development, also adopted at the Summit. As described in the letter, the Programme is “an instrument at the service of the world community for the promotion, development and deployment of renewable energy technologies as a major contribution to sustainable development”. It contains a series of recommendations for actions to be taken at the national and international levels to attain the objectives resulting from the Summit and the Harare Declaration and includes, as well, global, regional and national renewable energy projects to be implemented as a joint effort of the United Nations system, other governmental and non- governmental international organizations, academic and research institutions, financing entities, industries and the private sector. The letter states that the Assembly’s endorsement of the Programme would constitute a major contribution to its successful implementation and a recognition of the work of the World Solar Commission for the promotion of renewable energies.
The request for inclusion of the item on the observer status for the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) in the General Assembly is explained in a letter dated 23 June from Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela (document A/53/143).
An explanatory memorandum, attached to the letter as annex I, states that one of the objectives of the ACS is to promote sustained cultural, social, scientific and technological achievement in the region. The ACS promotes economic integration, facilitates regional participation in various multilateral forums, preserves and conserves the region’s natural environment, and strengthens relationships between governments and peoples of the Caribbean. The memorandum states that, as a regional organization with 25 members which are also Members of the United Nations, the ACS is convinced that observer status in the Assembly would be beneficial to it.
The request for the inclusion of the item on observer status for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the General Assembly is explained in a letter dated 30 June from the representatives of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.
General Committee – 4 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
An explanatory memorandum, attached to the letter as annex I, states that the OECD promotes policies designed to: achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries; contribute to economic expansion in member and non-member countries; and contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis. The OECD enjoys observer status in the Economic and Social Council, as well as in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and has working arrangements with other economic bodies and organizations of the United Nations. However, the ad hoc arrangements for observing selected Assembly sessions have become increasingly unworkable. The OECD considers that observer status in the Assembly would be mutually beneficial.
The request for a proposed item concerning “the coexistence of two governments across the Taiwan Strait” is contained in a letter from the representatives of Burkina Faso, Dominica, Chad, El Salvador, Gambia, Grenada, Liberia, Malawi, Nicaragua, Panama, Sao Tome and Principe, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Swaziland, Solomon Islands and the United Republic of Tanzania (document A/53/145).
In an explanatory memorandum annexed to the letter, the representatives state that the continued exclusion of the Republic of China from the United Nations is archaic and they call upon the Assembly to decide to revoke part of the decisions contained in resolution 2758 (XXVI), by which the Republic of China on Taiwan was excluded.
The item entitled financing of the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) was requested by the Secretary-General as a supplementary item in the provisional agenda (document A/53/91). Owing to the nature of the item, he further requests that it be allocated to the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).
Also before the Committee was a letter requesting the inclusion of a supplementary item entitled “Fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, from the representatives of Armenia, Bolivia, Burundi, Cyprus, Rwanda and Uruguay (document A/53/192). As described in an explanatory memorandum attached to the letter, both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention were born out of the international community’s commitment to create mechanisms that would protect mankind from the repetition of the atrocities that marred its past. Despite all the advances in civilization, the twentieth century was replete with instances of genocide, the latest of which was witnessed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda. Therefore, there is a need to take a fresh look at the Convention to try to determine why on the eve of the third millennium the world is still witness to genocide and to discuss the ways and means of prevention and punishment.
General Committee – 5 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
The memorandum goes on to say that, in April, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolution 1998/10, entitled “Fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, which reaffirmed the significance of the Convention as an effective international instrument for the punishment of the crime of genocide and called on all States to intensify their activities aimed at the full implementation of the provisions of the Convention. It is proposed that the item be included as a sub-item of item 46, “Fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.
The proposed item on causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa was proposed for inclusion in a letter by the Permanent Representative of Namibia (document A/53/231). In it, he said that despite the various efforts put in place by African governments, the socio-economic situation in Africa remains precarious due to a combination of factors, including unfavourable external economic conditions. For this and other reasons, he requested that this item be included in the Assembly’s fifty-third session, in the plenary, and as close as possible to the end of the general debate.
The request for inclusion of items on global implications of the Year 2000, financing of the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic, the Joint Inspection Unit and the election of judges to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was the result of General Assembly decisions.
Organization of Session
The representative of the United Kingdom said he agreed with the recommendation contained in paragraph 35, which refers to observances and commemorative meetings, on the understanding that in accordance with previous practice, the rule be applied with the necessary flexibility.
The Committee then endorsed the suggestions that observances and commemorative meetings take place, where possible, immediately following the general debate and that statements be limited to 15 minutes.
The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the remainder of the Secretary-General’s memorandum concerning organization of the session.
Adoption of Agenda
The Committee recommended deletion of item 62 concerning the situation in Burundi. Concerning item 89, the Committee recommended changing the wording to read, “Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the people of the Non-Self-Governing Territories”.
General Committee – 6 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
Genocide Convention
The representative of the United States speaking on item 168, entitled the fiftieth anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, said his delegation had no problem with the request of the sponsors to include it as a sub-item of item 46 entitled the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States would prefer, however, that the two commemorative events be held on separate occasions, in order to properly honour both anniversaries.
The representative of Armenia said his delegation had no objection with the request to include item 168 as a sub-item of item 46. He would, however, support the move to have an anniversary celebration of the sub-item on a separate day.
The Committee recommended the inclusion of item 168 as a sub-item under the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Chairman noted that items 1 to 6 had already been dealt with and the Committee then proceeded to recommend inclusion of items 7 through 92 [except item 62, which had been previously deleted].
Question of Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India.
The representative of Senegal suggested that the General Committee recommend that the General Assembly defer the item to its fifty-fourth session and to inscribe it on the provisional agenda for the next session without prejudice to the two parties involved.
The representative of Germany said that, after consultations with the delegations of Madagascar and France, he proposed that the General Committee recommend that the General Assembly defer the item to its next session and inscribe it on its provisional agenda.
The Committee recommended that the item be deferred to the fifty-fourth session.
Question of East Timor
The representative of San Marino, speaking on item 93 on the question of East Timor, said recent meetings between the Secretary-General and Portuguese and Indonesian officials and other subsequent discussions had been held without prejudice to the possibility of a special status for the Territory. It was hoped that agreement could be reached on the question before the end of the year. He stressed that the present momentum must be maintained and recommended that consideration of the item be deferred until the fifty-fourth
General Committee – 7 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
session of the Assembly and included on the provisional agenda of that session.
The representative of Brunei Darussalam supported San Marino’s proposal to defer discussion of item 93 to the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly. The item should also be included on the provisional agenda of that session.
The Committee recommended deferral of the item until the fifty-fourth session.
It proceeded to recommend inclusion of items 94 to 159.
Statement on Bethlehem 2000
The representative of Senegal requested the inclusion of the item on the provisional agenda of the fifty-third session. Beginning next year, people from all over the world would visit Bethlehem to celebrate the two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. Celebrations had been planned and 2 million visitors were expected for the occasion. The celebrations would begin during Christmas of the year 1999 and run through Easter of the year 2000. International cultural celebrations would be included, as would programmes for the preservation of the rich Palestinian history. The European Commission and the UNDP were already involved in the preparations for the celebration. The General Committee was strongly urged to include the item on the provisional agenda for the fifty-third session.
The Committee recommended inclusion of the item.
World Solar Programme 1996-2005
The representative of Zimbabwe said the main issue was that of renewable energy, and, specifically, solar energy, which was linked to the broader goal of sustainable development. The World Solar Commission’s decision to adopt a world solar programme could not be considered as being isolated from other processes, such as those initiated by UNESCO. The Commission had already agreed on the draft of a resolution, which would be introduced during the course of the current session. It was the Commission’s wish that the item be addressed in the plenary.
The representative of Georgia attached overriding importance to the inclusion of the item on the provisional agenda of the fifty-third session. Renewable energy was a major contribution to sustainable development. The Assembly should adopt a resolution in support of the proposed World Solar Programme 1996-2005.
The representative of China said solar energy was an important source of renewable energy. It was important for the protection of the environment, as
General Committee – 8 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
well as for economic development. His delegation supported the proposed World Solar Programme 1996-2005.
The Committee recommended inclusion of the item.
General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI)
The representative of Senegal said he fully supported the inscription of the item entitled need to review General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 25 October 1971, owing to a fundamental change in the international situation and to the coexistence of two governments across the Taiwan Strait. The world, as well as its configuration, had changed. The Republic of China on Taiwan was a reality, and, just as an eclipse could not avoid the sun, the People’s Republic of China could not avoid the Republic of China on Taiwan.
The Republic of China on Taiwan had its own population and territory, he said. It had the power to conclude international treaties and was subject to international law. It had commercial relations with 121 nations and was a member of various international non-governmental organizations under various forms and names. Today it met the criteria to be a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was a democratic and peaceful republic which complied with human rights and freedoms. The Republic of China on Taiwan had made highly valuable contributions to a number of developing countries. He hoped that the item would receive the backing of the General Committee and would be inscribed in the provisional agenda.
The representative of China said that this year, in a brazen attempt to challenge General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI), a handful of countries had once again raised the question of Taiwan’s representation at the United Nations. In essence, that proposal was part of an effort to split a sovereign State and create “two Chinas” or one “one China, one Taiwan” at the United Nations. Such an illegal act constituted a grave encroachment on China’s sovereignty and brutal interference in its internal affairs. It trampled on the United Nations Charter, on Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) and on the principles of international law. The Chinese Government and people strongly condemned such an act. China was, therefore, strongly opposed to inscribing the item on the agenda of the fifty-third session of the Assembly.
He said he hoped that the General Committee would continue to uphold justice and support the position of his Government. It was known to all that Taiwan had been an inalienable part of his country since ancient times. To date, 162 countries had diplomatic relations with his country and recognized that there was only one China in the world. Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) clearly reaffirmed the “one China” principle. The question of Taiwan was purely an internal matter for China — a matter for the Chinese people themselves. China would brook no interference by any country or individual in any way. The handful of countries that had raised the question of “Taiwan’s
General Committee – 9 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
membership at the United Nations” were only moving to severely sabotage the process of the peaceful reunification of China.
The representative of Swaziland said he attached great importance to the item and added its voice to the proposal. The unparalleled economic and political development of the Republic of China on Taiwan had brought a strong desire on the part of its people to participate in international activities. They were frustrated by the denial of their fundamental right to participate under the auspices of the United Nations, an institution they helped establish. His country had developed strong relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan and was pained at it being left out of the United Nations body.
The Republic of China on Taiwan did not intend to engage in a debate over supremacy with the People’s Republic of China, he continued. Rather, it wanted to focus on existing on an equal footing with the People’s Republic of China in the international community. In the post-cold-war era, the international community could not ignore the Republic of China on Taiwan. He noted the fact that the Republic of China on Taiwan, under Article 23 of the Charter, was still recognized as one of the founders of the United Nations.
The representative of Malawi said the question of Taiwan was a perennial one. Against all academic arguments, the Republic of China on Taiwan had steadily developed and consolidated the attributes of statehood. Its 21.5 million people aided many developed countries, and it had a truly democratic government which was the envy of many nations in the United Nations.
The Republic of China on Taiwan’s Government had also developed diplomatic relations with many countries. General Assembly resolution 2758 stood in the way of its long overdue recognition. Malawi felt that parallel representation of the two sides in the Organization would create momentum towards a resolution to the situation. Malawi favoured inclusion of item 166 in the agenda of the current session of the Assembly.
The representative of the Gambia said that excluding the Republic of China from world affairs was not a wise thing to do. It should rejoin the international community and take its rightful place in the United Nations. Not only was the Republic of China one of the major economies of the world, but in the area of information technology it was ranked among the most advanced in the world. The new millennium would be dominated by information technology and, thus, the Republic of China had much to share with both developed and developing countries. Furthermore, it was proud of its achievements in the area of democracy and human rights and conducted its affairs in accordance with the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
The representative of Argentina said that in 1971 the United Nations resolved the question of the representation of China through the adoption of Assembly resolution 2758. The People’s Republic of China was the only lawful
General Committee – 10 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
representative of the Chinese people. Argentina had supported the adoption of that resolution as it was based on the principle of respect for territorial integrity, as expressed by the United Nations Charter.
Argentina had been one of the first States to normalize relations with the People’s Republic of China in February 1972. Argentina explicitly recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China. Taiwan was an integral part of that territory. Argentina was not in favour of including the item in the provisional agenda of the fifty-third session because the issue had already been resolved.
The representative of Kazakhstan said his delegation fully supported the Government and the people of China in their efforts to safeguard their sovereignty and territorial integrity. His country, therefore, opposed the inclusion of item 166 on the agenda of the current session of the Assembly. Kazakhstan proceeded from the clear understanding that the Chinese Government was the only legitimate government representing the Chinese people and that Taiwan was a part of China. The question of Taiwan was an internal affair for the Government and the people of China to address.
The representative of the Solomon Islands stated that the resolution was “the creation of cold-war fear and rigidity that no longer have a place in this Organization”. No intellectual acrobatics could alter the fact that the People’s Republic of China was not the Republic of China. Refusing to review the resolution would continue the march in cold-war lock step into a new century of danger. That danger might come from denying the nearly 22 million people on Taiwan their right to be represented in the United Nations, which could make more difficult the peaceful reunification of the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China.
Of further concern to his delegation was the refusal earlier this year of the World Health Organization (WHO) to assist an outbreak of enterovirus diseases among infants and young children on Taiwan, resulting in 55 deaths and between 60,000 and 300,000 milder infections. Apparently, he said, the “WHO interprets resolution 2758 as requiring it, in this instance, to deny its own mandate”. He noted that, in past sessions of the General Assembly, resolutions were reviewed and revoked in whole or in part. The General Committee should not deny the fifty-third session the opportunity to do the same.
The representative of Sri Lanka said there was only one China, the People’s Republic of China, which has its capital in Beijing. He did not support the theory of two Chinas or any theory of coexistence of two governments. Sri Lanka continued to support the General Assembly’s decision on China in its resolution of 1971 and opposed the request to include the item on the provisional agenda of the fifty-third session.
General Committee – 11 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
The representative of Paraguay said the request for inclusion of the item had sufficient merit for consideration. The Republic of China on Taiwan undoubtedly constituted the three essential elements of a State: territory; population; and government. He was in favour of consideration of the item and hoped that, in the future, both parties would be able to resolve their differences.
The representative of Iraq said that resolution 2758 (XXVI) settled the matter of the representation of China once and for all. The resolution had acknowledged the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China and one Chinese State. Iraq objected to the inclusion of the item, as there was no justification for such an action. The inclusion would represent a flagrant violation of China’s territorial sovereignty. Renewing discussion was a waste of time for the General Assembly.
The representative of Burkina Faso requested the inscription of the item on the provisional agenda and noted that the Republic of China on Taiwan was a tangible reality. Most Member States had multi-faceted relations with it. He believed that the United Nations had a duty to take up any and all questions likely to have a negative impact on international peace and security. No situation was unchangeable, and he asked only that the reality of the Republic of China on Taiwan be recognized in a new context.
The representative of Kuwait said the issue of the membership of Taiwan in the United Nations was a settled matter that was evident in resolution 2758 (XXVI). Any attempt to include the item would, therefore, be a violation of the resolution and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. There was but one China and one Chinese people. The item should not be included in the agenda.
The representative of Georgia believed that the General Committee should recognize that the United Nations was an intergovernmental organization composed of sovereign States. Therefore, there should be a full understanding of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. The item should, therefore, not be included on the agenda of the current session.
The representative of Mexico said his delegation supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. The inclusion of the item would not be compatible with the interests of the Organization. There were also no grounds to question the decision of the Assembly in 1971, which had resulted in resolution 2758 (XXVI).
General Committee – 12 – Press Release GA/9434 1st Meeting (AM) 11 September 1998
The representative of Liberia said her Government firmly supported the rights of the Republic of China on Taiwan and those of its people. As part of the effort to restructure the United Nations, the Organization must adhere more closely to the principle of universality. The principles of the Charter must be observed through action, not only rhetoric. The restoration of the lawful rights of the Republic of China on Taiwan in the United Nations would be practical and rational. She was convinced that sustained and well- intentioned negotiations would lead to a durable resolution.
The representative of Sao Tome and Principe said the terms of resolution 2758 denied over 21.8 million people their right of international representation and contravened the United Nations Charter’s principle of universality. The language of the resolution reflected the cold war mentality of that time, but the new reality of today had to be dealt with. He said the Republic of China on Taiwan was a country with elected officials and democratic institutions. The nation enjoyed a strong economy and maintained active commercial ties worldwide.
Parallel representation was not an obstacle to reunification. It could instead benefit both sides on the Taiwan Strait in reaching that goal. The admission of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the Organization would not pose a challenge to any of the existing Members. Indeed, the peaceful coexistence of the two sides within the Organization could be a catalyst to ending one of the most enduring sources of instability in Asia. For the sake of world peace and security, the situation merited the attention of all United Nations Members.
The representative of Honduras said he firmly supported the proposal submitted by Senegal to include the item on the provisional agenda of the fifty-third session. Honduras did not want to interfere in the internal affairs of another State but, along with other peace loving States that cherish international security, requested the inclusion of the item.
The representative of Saint Lucia supported and respected the one China policy which was predicated on the principle of sovereignty. Taiwan’s heroic, but futile, efforts to carve a separate way within the international forum had won the sympathy of a few Member States. It was imperative, however, to reinforce the global trend towards peace and unity. It was important to uphold resolution 2758.
The representative of Dominica said the cause in support of Taiwan’s inclusion in the Organization was not only noble, but equitable and right. The principle of universality, predicated on the concept of sovereignty of States, was compelling in any situation. The Republic of China on Taiwan had been a sovereign State for many years and its statehood had been internationally recognized. There was, however, a determined and well- orchestrated effort to deny Taiwan its equal status. General Assembly
General Committee – 13 – Press Release GA/9434 2nd Meeting (PM) 11 September 1998
resolution 2758 formed the bedrock of the arguments of those who sought to deny membership of Taiwan to the Organization. The current realities commanded a reappraisal of the situation of the Republic of China on Taiwan and of the resolution in question.
The representative of Chad said resolution 2758 had not achieved the objectives intended by its co-sponsors. Owing to the fundamental change in the international situation, Chad viewed inclusion of the item as a just request.
The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines said there was definitely a need to review resolution 2758 (XXVI). Since the United Nations had allowed membership of both East and West Germany before reunification, as well as of North and South Korea, the Republic of China on Taiwan should be also admitted. As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proper and effective participation was a fundamental right of every citizen.
It was the obligation of the United Nations to protect universal human rights, he said. The people in the Republic of China on Taiwan continued to be excluded from the United Nations and its affiliated organs. He asked whether the Security Council had the authority to intervene if the Republic of China on Taiwan decided to test nuclear bombs. The international community should be grateful that the Republic of China on Taiwan had a government committed to peace. The issue should be looked at objectively and rationally.
The representative of Nicaragua said General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) was a reflection of the cold war’s ideological situation, which should now be revised if any solution to the problem of the two Chinas was to be found. Taiwan’s participation in the United Nations would inevitably facilitate broader communication and contact between both parties. That development would benefit security and stability in the region. For that reason, his delegation felt that the Republic of China on Taiwan should be readmitted as a Member of the Organization. His country was, therefore, in favour of including item 166 on the agenda.
The representative of Chile said the question of representation of China had been definitively resolved by resolution 2758 (XXVI) in 1971. The representative of the People’s Republic of China was the sole official representative of China. Chile did not suppport the proposal to include the item.
The representative of Grenada said change was generally viewed as good for society. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) had been passed during a different era. The geopolitical structure had changed and there was a need to re-examine the issue. Change was not new to the United Nations — as it was undergoing reforms to perform more efficiently. Grenada subscribed to the ideas of
General Committee – 14 – Press Release GA/9434 2nd Meeting (PM) 11 September 1998
self-determination and democracy for all. Democracy and good governance could only flourish in peace. Grenada recommended that the item be included.
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) was still valid today. It gave the right to the People’s Republic of China to a seat in the United Nations. Two separate sovereign States would only undermine the resolution and the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China. His country opposed inclusion of the item and urged the General Committee to reject it.
The representative of Cyprus said his country adhered to the cardinal principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States that was enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The People’s Republic of China was the only authority in China.
The representative of Nepal said his delegation opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the current session of the General Assembly. China’s representation in the United Nations was settled by the Assembly 27 years ago. As Taiwan was a part of China, any consideration of the item by the Assembly would constitute interference in the internal affairs of a Member State.
The representative of Myanmar said when China was conferred its rightful place in the United Nations, resolution 2758 (XXVI) expressly recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China. Taiwan was part of China. The question was an internal matter and one for the Chinese people to decide upon by themselves. Myanmar opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said resolution 2758 (XXVI) established the inalienable and legitimate right of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. Any reconsideration of that issue could only harm the spirit of the resolution. There was only one China — the People’s Republic of China — and it was the authentic representative of the Chinese people. His delegation opposed inclusion of the item in the agenda.
The representative of Libya said the resolution, which was adopted by an overwhelming majority, reaffirmed that the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of the Chinese people. The issue was settled by that resolution. Reinscription would be a waste of time and energy. He strongly opposed the inclusion of the item and reaffirmed the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China.
The representative of Belarus said he supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the People’s Republic of China. There was only one China and the People’s Republic was the sole legal representative of China.
General Committee – 15 – Press Release GA/9434 2nd Meeting (PM) 11 September 1998
The Republic of China on Taiwan was an integral part of China and could not be a separate member. He strongly opposed the inclusion of the item 166.
The representative of Brazil said he supported the view of the People’s Republic of China against the inclusion of the item. The resolution of 1971 was a definitive conclusion on the question of China.
The representative of Djibouti said the question was not a new one. The international community had decided once and for all, in resolution 2758 (XXVI), that there was one indivisible China of which Taiwan was an integral part. Any attempt contrary to that was doomed to failure. He asked that the item not be included.
The representative of the Russian Federation said he supported the arguments of the People’s Republic of China. He supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. There were no grounds for including the item on the agenda and he opposed the proposal.
The representative of Italy said the question of representation of China was already decided by resolution 2758 (XXVI). The General Assembly recognized the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal representative of China. He was not in favour of including the item.
The representative of Syria said inclusion of the item would not be in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. Any attempt to create two Chinese States would be a waste of time.
The representative of Bangladesh said his delegation reaffirmed its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China. The question of the territorial authority of China was resolved in resolution 2758 (XXVI), in which China was given its rightful place in the United Nations. He would not support the inclusion of the item in the agenda of the current session of the General Assembly.
The representative of Iran said the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole and legitimate representative of the Chinese people to the United Nations. His delegation did not support the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The representative of Mongolia said his delegation felt that there was no compelling reason for the item to be included in the agenda of the current General Assembly session. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) had decided that issue. The proposal to include the item in the agenda would confuse the present reality.
The representative of Algeria said his delegation fully supported resolution 2758 (XXVI), which gave a final, just and legitimate point of view about the representation of China in the United Nations. The resolution was
General Committee – 16 – Press Release GA/9434 2nd Meeting (PM) 11 September 1998
still valid. The General Committee should reject the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the current General Assembly.
The representative of Cuba said the provisions of resolution 2758 (XXVI) remained totally relevant and in force. Review of that resolution would call into question age-old realities and contravene principles of international law. The People’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative of the people of China in the United Nations. The item should not be included in the agenda of the current General Assembly session.
The representative of El Salvador said the request for the inclusion of the item in the agenda of the current session of the Assembly had been submitted according to the principle of sovereignty and equality of States that was stipulated in the United Nations Charter. El Salvador had long relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) resolved the problem of the representation of the people of China in the United Nations, but disregarded the fact there were two governments across the Taiwan Strait. The division of China was, thus, not resolved.
For the last 50 years, the Republic of China had established relations with many countries and various cooperation agreements with international financing and development agencies, he continued. His country’s support for inclusion of the item in the current agenda was not a challenge to resolution 2758 (XXVI), nor was it interference in the internal affairs of another Member State. Twenty million inhabitants with whom his country had links deserved support. The United Nations had a responsibility regarding the Republic of China that must not be obviated.
The representative of the Sudan said resolution 2758 (XXVI) had decisively judged the issue, and the attempt to include it in the agenda of the current session of the General Assembly was a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. The issue was an internal one for the People’s Republic of China.
The representative of Zimbabwe said although fundamental changes in the post cold-war era had been cited as justification of a change in the status of the Republic of China on Taiwan, those changes were not justification for sanctifying and legitimizing the dismembering of a Member State of the United Nations. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) was as valid today as it was in 1971. He urged that the item not be included.
The representative of Egypt said the issue had been decisively decided by resolution 2758 (XXVI). The People’s Republic of China was the only legitimate representative of the people of China. He joined with all other delegations who had rejected the inclusion.
General Committee – 17 – Press Release GA/9434 2nd Meeting (PM) 11 September 1998
The representative of Turkmenistan supported the People’s Republic of China and said it was not necessary to re-examine the resolution. He was against inclusion of the item in the agenda, since it contradicted the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
The representative of Germany said he was committed to the one China policy and saw no need to include the item on the agenda.
The representative of Yemen was against the inclusion of the item for reasons already stated by other delegations. His Government only recognized one China, the People’s Republic of China.
The representative of Suriname said that on several occasions the General Committee had been preoccupied with the issue. The General Assembly had always upheld that the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China. It was not appropriate to open the discussion, since it had already been decided in 1971. There was no need to include the item.
The representative of Uganda said he was not convinced that the changes that had taken place warranted a review of resolution 2758 (XXVI) of 1971. The question of the Republic of China on Taiwan was an internal affair of China. He opposed inclusion of the item, because it would be interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign State.
The representative of Tunisia said there was one China and resolution 2758 (XXVI) had resolved the question of representation. There was no need to include the item on the agenda.
The representative of Cameroon said he supported the People’s Republic of China in its determination to defend its sovereignty over all Chinese land. The solution to the question was contained in resolution 2758 (XXVI).
The representative of Kenya strongly opposed the inclusion of the item now and in the future, as resolution 2758 (XXVI) remained valid.
The representative of Lesotho opposed the view that resolution 2758 (XXVI) be reviewed and included on the agenda. He recognized only one China with its capital in Beijing. A review would not yield a different solution to the question.
The representative of Pakistan said resolution 2758 (XXVI) recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations. The decision was essential for protection of the provisions of the United Nations Charter and the causes the United Nations must serve under its Charter. The United Nations must bury the issue once and for all. China was a sovereign Member of the United Nations and Taiwan was a part of China. Therefore, he opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
General Committee – 18 – Press Release GA/9434 2nd Meeting (PM) 11 September 1998
The General Committee decided not to include item 166 on the agenda owing to a lack of consensus on the matter.
The Committee then proceeded to recommend inclusion of items 167, 169, 170 and 171. (The Committee had previously decided to include item 168 as a sub-item of item 46.)
The Committee then allocated the agenda items among the six Main Committees and the plenary.
Statement
The representative of the United States recommended that Chapter VI on the coordination of the policies and activities of the specialized agencies and other bodies of the United Nations system be allocated to the plenary, Second Committee (Economic and Financial) and the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).
In order to facilitate the work of the Main Committees, the Secretariat would circulate the report of the General Committee at the earliest possible opportunity, for consideration by the plenary on Tuesday, 15 September, in the afternoon.
* *** *
15 September 1999
Press Release
GA/9593
170 ITEMS ASSEMBLYíS GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS FOR INCLUSION ON FIFTY-FOURTH SESSION AGENDA
The General Committee, in two meetings held today, recommended 170 items for inclusion on the General Assemblyís agenda for its fifty-fourth session and allocated them among the six Main Committees and the plenary.
Among the six new items recommended for inclusion on the agenda were those on the observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in Assembly, commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, cooperation between the United Nations and the preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, granting of observer status in the Assembly for the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization; armed aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and financing of United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET).
As there was no consensus on the issue, the Committee decided not to recommend inclusion of a proposed item on the ìneed to examine the exceptional international situation pertaining to the Republic of China on Taiwan, to ensure that the fundamental right of its 22 million people to participate in the work and activities of the United Nations is fully respectedî. That decision was taken after a debate involving 68 speakers.
The Committee also decided to defer consideration of inclusion of the proposed item on observer status for the International Institute for democracy and electoral assistance to a later date. It also recommended that the inclusion of the item on the Question of Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India be deferred until the next session of the General Assembly, and that the item be inscribed in the provisional agenda for the fifty-fifth session.
Speaking on the issue related to the Republic of China on Taiwan, the representative of China said that in the past six years, a small number of countries had raised the issue of so-called Taiwanís participation at the United Nations in an attempt to create ìtwo Chinasî at the Organization. Such an illegal act was an open challenge to the ìone Chinaî principle widely recognized by the international community, and a severe violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter. It had seriously infringed upon Chinaís sovereignty and grossly interfered in its internal affairs. His country strongly opposed the inclusion of the item regarding Taiwan on the agenda of the current session of the Assembly. He hoped that the General Committee would continue to uphold justice, safeguard the purposes and principles of the Charter, Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) and norms of international law, and support the position of the Chinese delegation.
Fifty-fourth General Assembly – 1a – Press Release GA/9593 General Committee 15 September 1999 1st and 2nd Meetings (AM & PM)
The representative of the Gambia said the time was long overdue to recognize mistakes and correct them. Both the Peopleís Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan had defined territories and separate diplomatic relations with other States. Why then should the United Nations perpetuate discrimination of one against the other. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) was fundamentally defective. It had failed woefully on the issue of the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It had been founded during the cold war era, which was now long gone. ìAre we going to continue living in the pastî? he asked, or takes the opportunity to correct a politically misguided effort.
Many speakers in support of the itemís inclusion cited the Republic of China on Taiwanís attributes of statehood, such as its major global economy, its democratic government, its diplomatic relations with many countries and its aid to developing countries. Others, speaking against the proposal referred to the issue as an internal matter for the Government of China and, as basically, one of territorial integrity.
Statements on the proposed item were also made by the representatives of Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, Liberia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Marshall Islands, Nepal, Chad, Swaziland, Sri Lanka, Monaco, Kazakhstan, Solomon Islands, Nicaragua, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sudan, Djibouti, Salvador, Kuwait, Syria, Mongolia, Malawi, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Italy, Democratic Peopleís Republic of Korea, Libya, Cote díIvoire, Brazil, Iraq, Belize, Russian Federation, Belarus, Argentina, Seychelles, Cyprus, Guyana, South Africa, Congo, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, France, Tajikistan, Spain, Lesotho, Cuba, Zambia, Suriname, Saint Lucia, Afghanistan, Dominica, Kenya, United States, Tunisia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the United Republic of Tanzania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Chile, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, United Kingdom and Pakistan.
The representatives of the Seychelles, Monaco, Thailand, France, Sweden, Italy, Russian Federation, Cuba, Chile, China, Iraq, Algeria, Rwanda, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Namibia and Bolivia also spoke on other items today.
The recess date for the Assemblyís current session was set for 14 December and the closing date on 5 September 2000. The Committee also recommended the following closing dates for the Main Committees: First (Disarmament and International Security), Fourth (Special Political and Decolonization), and Sixth (Legal) Committees ñ 19 November; Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) ñ 22 November; Second Committee (Economic and Financial) ñ 26 November; and Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) ñ 10 December. However, the Committee did recommend that the Assembly review its decision taken last year establishing a fixed opening and closing date for General Assembly sessions.
Finally, the Committee recommended that the Assembly authorize the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Working Group on the Financing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to meet during the main part of the Assemblyís current session.
The General Committee will meet again at a date to be announced.
General Committee Work Programme
The General Assemblyís General Committee met this morning to consider the organization of work of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly and the allocation of items for the session. It was also to take up the agenda of the General Assembly.
The Committee had before it a memorandum by the Secretary-General (document A/BUR/54/1 and Add.1), according to which the Committee may wish to recommend that the fifty-fourth session should recess not later than Tuesday, 14 December. By its resolution 53/239 of 8 June 1999, the General Assembly decided that the fifty- fourth session would close on Tuesday, 5 September 2000.
Recalling the recommendation of the Special Committee on the Rationalization of the Procedures and Organization of the General Assembly that items that have lost their relevance be eliminated from the agenda along with those that are not ripe for consideration or could be dealt with by subsidiary organs of the Assembly, the Secretary-General states that the Main Committees should be encouraged to continue with the review of their respective agendas. The General Committee may wish to consider deferring to a later session items for which decisions or action are not required at the present session.
The document contains the list of the items recommended for inclusion in this year’s agenda of the Assembly. The new items on the agenda include those on the observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; cooperation between the United Nations and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization; granting of observer status in the General Assembly for the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization; observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly; the need to examine the exceptional international situation pertaining to the Republic of China on Taiwan, to ensure that the fundamental right of its 22 million people to participate in the work and activities of the United Nations is fully respected; financing of the United Nations Mission in East Timor; and armed aggression.
According to the memorandum, the sponsors of the requests for inclusion of all those items, except for the first and the last one, have suggested that they should be allocated to the plenary. The item on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources has been included in the provisional agenda of the fifty-fourth session without reference to its allocation. The item on the financing of the United Nations Mission in East Timor would be allocated to the Fifth Committee.
(The addendum to the memorandum contains information, including further items, to be included in it.)
Question of Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India
CLAUDE MOREL (Seychelles) said that following consultations with Madagascar and France, it had been suggested to recommend that the inclusion of the item be deferred until the next session of the General Assembly, and that the item be inscribed in the provisional agenda for the fifty-fifth session.
JACQUES LOUIS BOISSON (Monaco) said that after consultations with Madagascar and France it had been suggested to postpone until the next session the question under consideration and to inscribe that item for the provisional agenda of the fifty-fifth session without prejudice to the positions of the two countries on the matter.
The Committee then decided that consideration of the item should be deferred to the fifty-fifth session and that it be included in the provisional agenda of that sesion.
Question of East Timor
VORAVEE WIRASAMBAM (Thailand) said within the framework of the 5 May Tripartite Agreements on East Timor, important discussions were currently taking place to find a just and comprehensive solution to the problem in the Territory. He suggested that the General Committee recommend that the plenary resume consideration of the issue.
FRANCOIS ALABRUME (France) said that following consultation with the parties concerned, it seemed that an agreement on the issue was possible. His delegation also proposed that the General Committee recommend that the item be directly examined in plenary. He also added that it was his understanding that the parties concerned wanted the debate on the item in plenary to be held at the beginning of December. The recommendation to allocate the item to the plenary was also being made with the understanding that the bodies and individuals concerned would also be heard by the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).
The item was then recommended for inclusion in the agenda of the fifty- fourth session.
Commemoration of Tenth Anniversary of Convention on Rights of Child
PER NORSTROM (Sweden) said this year the international community commemorated the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provided a special occasion to reaffirm commitments towards that cause. A solemn plenary session would be an appropriate forum to hold the commemoration. The Governments of Canada, Egypt, Mali, Mexico, Pakistan and Sweden had requested the inclusion of that item on the agenda. It should be allocated to the plenary of the General Assembly.
FRANCESCO PAOLO FULCI (Italy) praised the initiative to request the inclusion in the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly an item on the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children were the future of the world, to protect them was to protect the future. The Convention addressed a number of important issues, including those of the right to life and family relations; freedom of expression, conscience and religion; and the protection of children from all forms of violence. Recently, the international community had made additional efforts to enhance and protect the rights of the child. In particular, he was referring to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 1998. Italy strongly supported the inclusion of that item in the agenda of the fifty-fourth session.
Mr. BOISSON (Monaco) said the Security Council had held a fruitful debate to the issue of children in armed conflict on 25 August. As a result of that debate, everyone had become aware that while the Convention had been almost universally ratified, its implementation still left something to be desired. For that reason, his delegation supported the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
The General Committee then recommended the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
Mr. NOSTROM (Sweden) said 17 States were members of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, including his country. Non- governmental organizations (NGOs) also participated in the work of the Institute. It also fulfilled the ideals for obtaining observer status and its work was directly relevant to the United Nations in promoting sustainable democracy and electoral processes worldwide. In its activities, the Institute adopted a non- prescriptive approach to democratization. It had cooperated with the United Nations on several projects. He hoped that the General Committee would decide to include the item on the current sessionís agenda.
GENNADY GATILOV (Russian Federation) said his delegation did not have any objection to the Institute itself since it was an authoritative international organization that did useful work. That body could not be put in the category of typical cases. The Institute was an intergovernmental body which included associated NGO members. All members could vote. The Institute was therefore not a purely intergovernmental organization, especially since the constitution of its members could change. Granting observer status to it would be undesirable and presented the risk of opening up a proliferation of like intergovernmental organizations trying to obtain observer status in the Assembly. There was need for an in-depth analysis of the current proposed item.
RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said the proposed item was of enormous importance to the United Nations and his country. After reviewing the available information, however, certain doubts had arisen regarding the intergovernmental nature of the organization. Cuba had no objection in principle. However, it would be worth recalling that Assembly resolution A/49/26 stated that observer status would be given only to government and intergovernmental organizations. He drew attention to the fact there were aspects of the Institute that did not correspond to that of an intergovernmental organization. It would be beneficial if observer status was not granted.
RAIMUNDO GONZALEZ (Chile) said that the discussion under way on the granting of observer status seemed to be a minor matter. His country was a co-sponsor of the request to include the proposed item on the current agenda of the Assembly. The Institute clearly had the nature of an intergovernmental organization. That had been recognized for years. The fundamental objective of the Institute was consistent and compatible with the objectives of the Charter. The idea of promoting sustainable democracy the world over was something that should be shared by all the United Nations. His delegation supported inclusion of the item on the agenda.
Situation Pertaining to Republic of China on Taiwan
IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said the Republic of China on Taiwan was a free and democratic State and not a province. It existed by itself in a well-defined territorial space. It possessed a territory, a population and state power that was exercised over the population, in addition to treaty-making powers. The Republic of China on Taiwan could be proud of building a nation that respected democracy and human rights. His country had also restored diplomatic relation with it in January 1996. Some 30 other sovereign States also maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. In addition nearly two thirds of Member States of the United Nations also openly maintained trade and economic relations with Taiwan, the fourth largest trading state in the world. He recommended inclusion of the item in the current agenda of the Assembly.
QIN HUASUN (China) said his delegation had carefully read the document on the observer status for the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and had taken note of some useful work conducted by the Institute, as well as its connections with the international organizations. It found the Institute to be a unique and novel international organization, which had States and NGOs as its members. Both States and NGOs enjoyed the same rights and obligations. It was necessary to be extremely prudent when considering granting the Institute observer status in the General Assembly, as it was hard to determine whether it met the requirements for the granting of such a status.
MOHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDID (Iraq) said his delegation had no objection to the efforts of the Institute, but the presence of NGOs participating in the Institute raised concerns. His delegation would not like to grant observer status to those organizations, which would give rise to complex consideration. For that reason it objected to the inclusion of the item in this yearís agenda.
ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) said the previous speakers had made his task easier. The problem was not with the objectives and the role of the Institute, but with the legal nature of its status. It was a question if it came into the category of organizations which could be granted the observer status. It was not an inter-governmental organization, but a hybrid, gathering together governments and NGOs. Legal aspects of the problem should be considered in order not to create a precedent. The Sixth Committee (Legal) should be asked to give recommendations on the matter.
Taking into account the different views expressed, the General Committee deferred consideration of the item’s inclusion to a later date following consultations.
QIN HUASUN (China) said that in the past six years, a small number of countries had once again raised the issue of so-called Taiwanís participation at the United Nations in an attempt to create ìtwo Chinasî at the Organization. Such an illegal act was an open challenge to the ìone Chinaî principle widely recognized by the international community, and a severe violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. It had seriously infringed upon Chinaís sovereignty and grossly interfered in Chinaís internal affairs. China strongly opposed the inclusion of item 171 of the draft agenda regarding Taiwan on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly. He hoped that the General Committee would continue to uphold justice, safeguard the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) and norms of international law, and support the position of the Chinese delegation.
In the 22 years before resolution 2758 (XXVI) had been adopted, due to the cold war, the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China had been excluded from the United Nations, and the seat of China at the Organization had been illegally occupied by the Taiwan authorities, he said. The resolution had corrected that historical mistake by recognizing clearly and unequivocally that ìthe representatives of the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China to the United Nations are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the Peopleís Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Councilî. Restoring the legitimate rights of the Peopleís Republic of China and expelling the Taiwan authorities from the Organization were two indivisible aspects of the one issue of Chinaís representation at the United Nations in a just, thorough and comprehensive manner.
Article 4 of the Charter clearly stipulated that United Nations membership was open only to sovereign States, he said. As a province of China, Taiwan was in no position to participate in the work or activities of the United Nations or its specialized agencies. The issue of Taiwan was fundamentally different from those of Germany and Korea and could not be placed on a par with them. Although this yearís proposal by a small number of States had come out after elaborate and meticulous repackaging, it would inevitably come to the same end as that of all the previous ones. The General Committee since 1993 had flatly refused to include the issue of Taiwanís so-called ìparticipationî in the United Nations in the agenda of the General Assembly.
DOMINGOS AUGUSTO FERREIRA (Sao Tome and Principe) said that the sub-region created by conferring United Nations membership upon the People’s Republic of China on Taiwan in 1971, had left 22 million people without representation. Although the Republic of China on Taiwan had elected officials and a strong economy, the creation of this sub region had sparked an arms race and a dangerous proliferation of all types of weapons that could jeopardize international security.
The situation merited the attention of all the members of the United Nations, he said. He called on the General Committee to address this situation and to work in the direction of peace, international security and stability in the world.
FAMATTA ROSE OSODE (Liberia) said that while Liberia supported the supplementary item now under consideration by the General Committee, a much harder look at the political and legal realities of the Taiwan Strait was needed in order to address the needs of the 22 million residents of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It would be appropriate, she said, for the General Assembly to establish an ad hoc committee for that purpose. The representative also recommended that the Republic of China on Taiwan be given an observer status, in its own name, in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Health Organization.
She also noted that the long-term goal of the eventual unification of the Peopleís Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan as ìone Chinaî could not be served if the United Nations continued with the status quo isolation of Taiwan politically. She was sorry to learn that Liberiaís sponsorship of the proposal before the General Committee had offended the Chinese people. Liberiaís aim, she said, was to find ways to resolve this outstanding and complex issue.
WIN MRA (Myanmar) said that Article 2 of the Charter stipulated that the United Nations and its Member States should refrain from any action against the territorial integrity and political independence of any State or intervene in matters within the jurisdiction of any State. The question of Chinaís representation at the United Nations had been settled with resolution 2758 (XXVI) which recognized the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China as the only representative of China at the United Nations. Myanmar abided by the one China policy with Taiwan as an inalienable part of that State.
ANWARUL KARIM CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said issues in the proposal before the General Committee did not promote the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Bangladesh considered Taiwan a part of China. He said that view was widely acknowledged in the international community. The question of China’s representation at the United Nations had been resolved in a comprehensive manner. He therefore strongly advocated that the item not be included in the agenda.
MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso) said that, as in past years, his delegation could not remain indifferent to the destiny of the Republic of China on Taiwan. He emphasized that Burkina Faso did not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of any States; justice and fairness, however, were fundamental principles, and should be implemented. It should be taken into account that Taiwan was a tangible reality. For 50 years now, it had been operating as an autonomous entity; it had its own effective and legitimate government.
Free determination of peoples should be ensured, he continued. The people of Taiwan should have the freedom to go in the direction they chose. The international community should aid it towards that end. Avoiding or ignoring the question would give rise to a situation harmful to international peace and security. For that reason, his delegation supported the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the General Assembly.
Mr. BAALI (Algeria) said that his delegation had always considered this question resolved by resolution 2758 (XXVI), which had redressed a historic error of the cold war period. It had also resolved in a definitive manner the representation of China in the United Nations. The population of Taiwan was represented in the Organization through the Peopleís Republic of China. The official status of Taiwan did not allow it to participate in the work of the United Nations, as it was not a sovereign State. The item under consideration should not be included in the agenda of the United Nations. That position was consistent with the former actions of the General Committee.
JACKEO A. RELANG (Marshall Islands) said that democracy was alive and thriving in the Republic of China on Taiwan and that the Marshall Islands had found a “natural partner” there. He said that both nations had faced tremendous challenges in the protection and promotion of the human rights of their people, and that both had sacrificed much in the defence of freedom. He cited the nation’s technical knowledge and commitment to international development as sufficient reason to support inclusion of the item.
He also noted that two separate governments had existed on opposite sides of the Taiwan Straits for many years, and that while the goal of unification under a democratic system was a noble one, it might be a long way in the future. Until then, he said, his delegation saw no obstacle in having the freely elected officials present their opinions, arguments and experiences before the United Nations.
DURGA PRASAD BHATTARAI (Nepal) said his delegation had always maintained that the question of Chinaís representation at the United Nations had been settled by the Assembly at its twenty-sixth session under resolution 2758 (XXVI). The inclusion of the item on the current agenda would therefore undermine not only the authority of a decision made 28 years ago by the Assembly, but also the purposes and principles of the Charter. Consideration of the proposed item by the Assembly would be an interference in the internal affairs of a Member State since Taiwan was a part of China.
MAYO ABAKAKA (Chad) said the maintenance of international peace and security was still one of the objectives of the United Nations. The Charter recommended settling disputes in a peaceful way with recourse to dialogue. To conserve peace in the sub-region of the Taiwan Strait, he called on the Republic of China on Taiwan to continue the dialogue it had begun. China and the Republic of China on Taiwan were two separate States with two governments. Neither was subject to the jurisdiction of the other. The United Nations was a rostrum for the representation of all independent countries. Now was the time to authorize the Republic of China on Taiwan to express to the international community the desires of its 22 million people and participate in activities of the United Nations.
BABOUCCAR-BLAISE ISMAILA JAGNE (Gambia) said the time was long overdue to recognize mistakes and correct them. Both the Peopleís Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan had defined territories and separate diplomatic relations with other States. Why then should the United Nations perpetuate discrimination of one against the other. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) was fundamentally defective. It had failed woefully on the issue of the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It had been founded during the cold war era which was now long gone. ìAre we going to continue living in the pastî? he asked, or take the opportunity to correct a politically misguided effort.
MOSES M. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said the creation of resolution 2758 (XXVI) was not reflective of the historic background and perspectives of 1949. There was talk of sovereignty in the United Nations. What was sovereignty? It referred to separate entities which were political and enjoyed separate political dominion. That was the case in the question of the Republic of China on Taiwan. He pointed out that resolution 2758 (XXVI) resolved only one question — the right of representation of mainland China to the exclusion of the Republic of China on Taiwan. In 1971, a number of States had voted against the resolution, while a good number had remained undecided. He felt obliged to say that there could be no pretense that the world was safe when the very Organization which was supposed to guarantee safety was now compromising international affairs.
He said resolution 2758 further prepared the stage for a harmful situation regarding peace in the region. It was every nationís dream to identify itself one way or another with the United Nations. The Taiwanese people probably wondered why such a fundamental right had been taken away in October 1971 by the very Organization they had helped to set up. He recommended inclusion of the item on the agenda and advocated the establishment of a working group to determine why resolution 2758 could not be revisited.
JOHN DE SARAM (Sri Lanka) said there was only one China, which was the Peopleís Republic of China — according to resolution 2758 (XXVI), it represented the people of China at the United Nations. His delegation opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
Mr. BOISSON (Monaco) said his Government held an unfavourable position regarding the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly.
REX S. HOROI (Solomon Islands) said that if the General Committee denied the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan their right to be heard in the United Nations and to have their historically unique situation considered by the General Assembly, the Committee would be turning its back on the dangerous situation in the Taiwan Strait which could explode into an armed conflict. Of all the nations co-sponsoring the proposal, the Solomon Islands was nearest to the Taiwan Strait across which the threats of military action frequently made by the People’s Republic of China would be fulfilled. The United Nations, he said, should take those threats seriously.
He said that participation in the United Nations system of the Republic of China on Taiwan, a major economic power whose words and deeds demonstrated its commitment to the principles of the Charter, would benefit the Organization. It would assist in creating an atmosphere conducive to achieving the successful conclusion of what would be difficult negotiations for unification with the People’s Republic of China.
MARIO H.CASTELLON DUARTE (Nicaragua) said that his Government supported the motion to establish a working group to propose practical recommendations on the matter. The Republic of China on Taiwan met the conditions to be considered for participation in the United Nations. It was functioning efficiently for the 22 million of its inhabitants. With the admission of Taiwan, which had been admitted to international financial organizations, there would be an increase in the budget of the Organization.
At the moment, he said, the Organization was not benefiting from the participation of 22 million people, who were also excluded from the United Nations protection of human rights. His Government supported the admission of the Republic of China on Taiwan in the United Nations.
LAMUEL A. STANISLAUS (Grenada) noting that his country was the only member of the General Committee that had diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan, said that Grenada was proud to join the other delegations requesting the inclusion of the supplementary item that would return the Republic of China on Taiwan to full membership in the United Nations without prejudice to the People’s Republic of China.
He said that both the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China on the mainland had shown tremendous economic growth and development under two different systems of political and social values with neither excercising control over the other. They had co-existed for 50 years, he noted. The international community had marveled at the economic growth of both nations.
He said that with such a solid record of performance by a motivated, entrepreneurial and peaceful people, the Republic of China on Taiwan qualified for membership in the United Nations, where the solidarity and unification of China would be enhanced and the dreams of the Chinese people fulfilled.
LEE L. MOORE (Saint Kitts and Nevis) said his Government did not presume to offer any resolution or solution to any dispute among the Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. They alone could solve that problem. Since its independence, however, his country had established a relationship with the Republic of China on Taiwan. Democracy had developed in the Republic of China on Taiwan and the human rights of its 22 million people now demanded expression in the Assembly.
ADMARAL KH. ARYSTANBEKOVA (Kazakhstan) said her country proceeded from the clear understanding that the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China was the sole representative of the people of China and that the province of Taiwan was an integral part of that country. She supported non-inclusion of the item in the agenda.
MICHEL ORLANDO KERPENS (Suriname) said there was only one China — resolution 2758 (XXVI) had established that. His country continued to support the Peopleís Republic of China as a single representative of that country in the United Nations. There was no reason for the General Committee to recommend the inclusion of the item.
ELFATIH MAHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said his delegation believed that the proposal for inclusion ran in contradiction with the United Nations Charter and constituted a blatant interference in the internal affairs of the Peopleís Republic of China. The issue of representation of China had been resolved by resolution 2758 (XXVI), and that resolution needed to be preserved. His delegation completely refused to support the proposal on the inclusion of the item.
BADRI ALI BIGOREH (Djibouti) said his delegation had always supported the fact that there was one indivisible China and that the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China was its sole representative at the United Nations. For his country it was a matter of principle. Djibouti opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
GUILLERMO A. MELENDEZ-BARAHONA (El Salvador) said that when examining the inclusion of an additional item, it was necessary to consider the exceptional position of the people of Taiwan. The presentation of the initiative did not relate to the size of the territory or the number of people represented. The Charter enshrined the sovereign equality of all States. Speaking about Taiwan, El Salvador was speaking about a country with which it had friendly relations. The political, economic and social realities of that country could not be disregarded, particularly in view of substantive changes in the international situation in the aftermath of the cold war.
BADER MOHAMMD E. EL-AWDI (Kuwait) said resolution 2758 had resolved the issue. He also believed that any attempt to include the item now would be a clear violation of the resolution. His country recognized only one China, one Government, and one Chinese people with one capital — Beijing.
FAYYSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said respect for international resolutions was the policy of his Government. Resolution 2758 was outstanding. Including the proposed item was therefore not in line with the Charter or the content of the resolution. Any attempt to create two Chinese States was an attempt to distort facts and interfere in the territorial integrity of a Member State. Syria recognized one China — the Peopleís Republic of China.
JARGALSAIKHANY ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) said that there was no compelling reason for the propoesed item to be included on the agenda. Resolution 2758 (XXVI) restored the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China and had settled the issue of the representation of the Chinese people and the Government in the United Nations. The proposal to include the item in the agenda of the current session not only contradicted political reality, but also the prncipled decision taken by the General Assembly in 1971.
DAVID RUBADIRI (Malawi) said the Republic of China on Taiwan had been an example of the democratic principles which all were trying to attain. The Republic of China on Taiwan had established formal relations with a number of recognized members of the United Nations. It did not claim to represent all of China, just 22 million people. It was necessary now to revoke the section of 2758 which excluded the Republic of China on Taiwan from the United Nations.
ANGEL EDMUNDO ORELLANA MERCADO (Honduras) said his Government supported the request for the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session to ensure the rights of the 22 million people of Taiwan.
GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala) said that while it is one of the countries that maintained and valued full diplomatic, commercial and cultural relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan, Guatemala would reiterate its policy of unconditional adherence to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. “We trust”, he said “that the differences existing in the viewpoints of the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China will find a path of solution and understanding through the ongoing conversations between both parties.”
He said that if the United Nations could in any way assist in creating conditions that would facilitate a dialogue between these two nations, Guatemala would support the corresponding decisions.
PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said his country supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China and saw no validity in the proposal to include the item on the agenda.
Mr.FULCI (Italy) said the question had already been decided by resolution 2758 (XXVI), by the terms of which the Assembly had recognized that the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China was the only lawful representative of the people of China to the United Nations. It was the responsibility of the Government of that country to pursue a peaceful solution to that internal problem.
KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic Peopleís Republic of Korea) said that the issue of Taiwan had already been resolved by the relevant General Assembly resolution, which recognized the Peoplesís Republic of China and expelled the authorities of Taiwan from the United Nations. Taiwan was an inseparable part of China, and two Chinas should not be recognized. Thus, the inclusion of the item in the agenda could not be supported. Making an analogy with the case of the memberships of Germany and Korea was not valid. The item should not be included as an agenda item of the current session.
JAMALEDDIN A. HAMIDA (Libya) said the General Assembly had settled the question of representation of China at the United Nations, and the question should not be raised again. The Peopleís Republic of China was the only representative of the people of that country. The General Committee had refused to include that item on the agenda in the past, and he hoped the question would not come up again in the future.
DIENEBOU KABA CAMARA (CÙte díIvoire) said that her country recognized the important role that the Republic of China on Taiwan played, but she was not in favour of including that item on the General Assembly agenda. The Peopleís Republic of China, which represented the country at the United Nations, should seek a peaceful solution to the problem.
Mr. BIATO (Brazil) said the relevant resolution had provided a fine and definitive solution to the problem. His country therefore opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
MUHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) said there was only one China and only one Chinese people. Including the proposed item on the agenda would be tantamount to bypassing the resolutions of the Assembly. It would also set a dangerous precedent, since the Organization should protect its resolutions.
STUART W. LESLIE (Belize) stressed that it was difficult to come to terms with the reality that 22 million people were not allowed through their democratically elected representatives to participate in world politics and find solutions to problems. While not supporting impediments to the sovereignty of any State, it proposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.
GENNADY GATILOV (Russian Federation) said he believed that resolution 2758, which described the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China, adequately regulated and settled the question of China in the United Nations. His delegation therefore opposed the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
ANZHELA KORNELIOUK (Belarus) said there was only one China — the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan was an inalienable part of it and not a sovereign State. His country opposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.
FERNANDO PETRELLA (Argentina) said the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China in the United Nations. His country had supported adoption of resolution 2758 based on the principles of justice and territorial integrity. Taiwan was an inalienable part of China, and Argentina was not in favour of the proposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.
CLAUDE MOREL (Seychelles) added his voice to those which had argued against inclusion of the item on the agenda.
SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said his delegation opposed the proposal, for General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled definitively the question of Chinese representation at the United Nations.
SONIA FELICITY ELLIOTT (Guyana) said that her delegation was opposed to the inclusion of the issue. There was only one China, of which Taiwan was an integral part. She urged that the issue not be pursued.
MARTHINUS CHRISTOFFEL JOHANNES VAN SCHALKWYK (South Africa) said his delegation had established full diplomatic relations with the Peopleís Republic of China and cancelled its relations with Taiwan. Todayís proposed item was an internal matter of the Peopleís Republic of China, and his country could not support its inclusion on the agenda.
HENRI BLAISE GOTIENNE (Congo) said that it was necessary to resolutely reaffirm the strengthening of the provisions of the Charter. There was one China within the United Nations, and that had been established by the General Assembly resolution. It was possible to show sympathy with the province of Taiwan, but that matter should be resolved peacefully and internally.
ALOUNKEO KITTIKHOUN (Lao Peopleís Democratic Republic) said the position of his country remained unchanged. Like the majority of States, it supported only one China at the United Nations. Taiwan was an inseparable part of the Peopleí Republic of China. General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) had settled that matter once and for all. His delegation was opposed to the inclusion of the item on Taiwan in the agenda of the fifty-fourth session.
FRANCOIS ALABRUNE (France) said the position of his country was based on respect for resolution 2758 (XXVI). His delegation was not in favour of the inscription of the item on the agenda.
RASHID ALIMOV (Tajikistan) said that the principal position of his country was based on the sovereignty of the Peopleís Republic of China. The Government of that country was the only legitimate Government representing that country, of which Taiwan was an integral part. He was against the proposal to include the item in the agenda of the General Assembly for the fifty-fourth session.
ANA MARIA MENENDEZ (Spain) said it was not appropriate to include the item on the agenda of the Assembly.
PERCY METSING MANGOAELA (Lesotho) said his delegation was dismayed that the item, which came up every year with fewer and fewer States requesting its inclusion, was still a source of dispute. There was one China -ñ the Peopleís Republic of China. That had been resolved in 1971, yet the issue continued to plague the Assembly every year. It now served no useful purpose.
Mr. CESPEDES (Cuba) said the provisions of resolution 2758 were relevant. To intercede would violate the principles of international law. The People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China in the United Nations. He urged that in compliance with the provisions of international law, the item not be included on the agenda.
ENCYLA SINJELA (Zambia) said the annual ritual of the Republic of China on Taiwan was now a futile gesture. Her Government recognized the Peopleís Republic of China as the only China.
JULIAN HUNTE (Saint Lucia) said the China issue was now moot. The recognition of Taiwan as a nation defied the principle tenets upon which sovereignty and statehood were based. Saint Lucia believed in one China -ñ the Peopleís Republic of China and thus stated its unambiguous opposition to inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session.
MOHAMMAD AKBAR ANDKHOLIE (Afghansistan) said the question of China had been settled in 1971. His delegation was strongly opposed to inclusion of the item on the agenda.
SIMON PAUL RICHARDS (Dominica) said the current exercise was one his country took very seriosusly. Despite the debate being called futile, Dominica would not abandon the cause. The Republic of China on Taiwan had made such spectacular political and economic advances since 1971 it was now a force of stability in the region. It was also a pluralistic and democratic State with positive political development. The Republic of China on Taiwanís continued exclusion from the United Nations was an exceptional international situation that called for a review.
ROSELYN RUTH ASUMWA ODERA (Kenya) said that her country supported the one- China policy. The Government of the Peopleís Republic of China was the sole representative of China, and resolution 2758 was a clear legislative authority, which remained valid today. The United Nations was not the right forum for this issue to be resolved amicably.
ROBERT ROSENSTOCK (United States) said the policy of the United States was long-standing and consistent: there was one China, cross-Strait problems should be resolved peacefully, and there should be dialogue.
MOKHTAR CHAOUACHI (Tunisia) said there was only one China, and resolution 2758 had resolved that issue. Therefore, a new item should not be added to the agenda of the General Assembly.
DENNIE M.J.WILSON (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said that it was necessary to go back and examine the fallacy of resolution 2758 (XXVI). What had happened was an example of what could go wrong at the United Nations. The resolution did not represent a just solution, for it failed to address the issue of representation of the Republic of China on Taiwan at the United Nations. Today the necessity of direct representation of the 22 million people was being discussed. The legitimacy of the government of Taiwan could not be challenged, and it was impossible to ignore the issue. He urged the consideration of the agenda item 171.
DAUDI N. MWAKAWAGO (United Republic of Tanzania) said that resolution 2758 remained valid and had ended more than 30 years of debate about Chinaís representation at the United Nations. He noted that the argument in the proposed agenda item could only be seen as an attempt to undermine this resolution and the integrity of the People’s Republic of China.
He said that political problems within any territorial jurisdiction were matters for the respective sovereigns to resolve peacefully. He noted that the international community should not aggravate such problems by encouraging dismemberment, but dialogue. He urged the General Committee to reject the proposal.
NASTE CALOVSKI (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said that while the proposal to include the item was a positive effort, the decision rested with the Committee. His Government also felt that it was essential that the Organization abide by the Charter.
Mr. GONZALES (Chile) said the representation of China had been resolved in 1971. He therefore opposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.
KOUROSH AHMADI (Iran) said his country complied with the one China policy and considered Taiwan an integral part of the People’s Republic of China. His country would not accept the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
MOHAMED ABDO AL-SINDI (Yemen) said there was one China — the People’s Republic of China ñ and it was the legal and sole representative of China. There was, therefore, no need to have the item included on the Agenda.
ISMAIL KHAIRAT (Egypt) said the People’s Republic of China was the sole representative of China. His country did not agree with the idea of mentioning the item on the agenda of the current session.
JOHN ANDREW GRAINGER (United Kingdom) said todayís arguments against the inscription of the item were convincing. His delegation was also against including the item.
INAMUL HAQUE (Pakistan) said the General Committee had been forced to enter into a repetitive and futile exercise for many years. Todayís debate had established once more that Taiwan had no right to be represented at the United Nations. The question of representation had been decided in 1971. Any attempt at re-opening the issue would constitute a serious violation of the Charter. The People’s Republic of China was a highly respected Member of the United Nations. Taiwan was a part of China and had no right to join the Organization. He hoped that this would be the last time that General Committee would have to go through the avoidable and sterile exercise about the issue.
Based on views expressed, the General Committee decided not to include the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly.
Financing of United Nations Mission in East Timor
The Committee recommended inclusion of the item on the agenda
Armed Aggression against Democratic Republic of the Congo
Mr. KAYINAMURA (Rwanda) requested guidance on rule 14 of the rules of procedure. The note verbale from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was dated 8 September, and he sought clarification on the rules of procedure as to when the item could come up.
ATOKI ILEKA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that in the note of 7 September, his Government had expressed its wish for the item to remain on the agenda of the United Nations until a solution was found. He would like the item to be discussed in the plenary. Full implementation of the Lusaka process should be ensured.
THEO-BEN GURIRAB (Namibia) President of the General Assembly and Chairman of the General Committee, said that the recommendation for inclusion of the item had been made during the fifty-third session of the General Assembly, it was now for the General Committee to decide the matter, and the decision should come only from the members of the Committee. The Committee had been asked to endorse the decision made at the fifty-third session of the General Assembly.
GIDEON KAYINAMURA (Rwanda) said that the United Nations functioned the way it did because it abided by its own rules. Article 12 of the Charter, in its parts 1 and 2 stated that when a matter was under consideration by the Security Council, it might not be debated in any other forum. The item was entitled ìArmed Aggressionî. The General Committee could not be misled by the presumption of the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that there had been an aggression. The Council was seized of the matter, and a peacekeeping force was to be deployed in the area. He would like a ruling on how to proceed in view of the provisions of the Charter. He also wanted clarification on how to move a debate on the matter, which had already been brought before the attention of the International Court of Justice.
The situation in the Great Lakes Region was extremely delicate, he said. Recently, regional efforts had been made to bring a matter to an end and a ceasefire had been signed. The Committee could not afford to jeopardize the efforts and to delay the peace process in the Great Lakes region. For its part, his country had suffered from genocide and aggression. For the sake of peace, his delegation would oppose the motion and try to explain the situation in the region.
NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said that the General Assembly was the master of its own business, but other processes which were already in place should not be jeopardized. He shared the views of Rwanda and appealed for the decision to be taken to allow all the processes to continue in order to solve the problem in the region.
Mr. ILEKA (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that he was obliged to take the floor again. There was no incompatibility between different United Nations bodies. When the Security Council was dealing with the question, other bodies could make recommendations. Backing up the request of his Government, he had to restate the facts: the country was living under military emergency. The aggression by the Rwanda-Uganda coalition had led to numerous problems in his country and an upsurge of disease had taken place in the region. There were also violations of humanitarian law. Atrocities had been committed in the Kitangani region. Hundreds of innocent people had died as a result of the intervention by uninvited troops. The international community could not remain silent. It had the duty to forcefully condemn the aggression of which his country was a victim. Those who invaded his country, had done so under false pretexts. As for the genocide in Rwanda, it had been committed by its own people.
SELMA NDEYAPO ASHIPALA-MUSAVYI (Namibia) said the General Assembly could not make recommendations on an issue before the Security Council, but it could discuss it. Her delegation would await the recommendation of the General Committee on the issue.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee was a law unto its own and could make recommendations. Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure stated that while the Assembly could not take decisions on a matter before the Council, it could discuss it.
The Committee then recommended the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly.
Allocation of Items
The Committtee then allocated the items to the various General Assembly Committees and the plenary according to patterns taken in the past.
ALBERTO SALAMANCA (Bolivia), speaking on the granting of observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, requested that the item be moved directly to consideration by the plenary of the fifty-fourth session.
GENNADY GATILOV (Russian Federation) said that the decision of the General Committee regarding the adoption of the draft resolution containing an optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women directly in the plenary should not create a precedent for the future.
YUAN XIAOYING (China) supported the opinion expressed by the Russian Federation. China had no intention to block the proposal to allocate the item directly to the plenary, but for the future hoped that similar resolutions would be adopted through other channels. Precedent should not be created for the future.
* *** *
7 September 2000
Press Release
GA/9755
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS NINE ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGENDA
Decides Not To Recommend Inclusion Of Item on ëRepublic of China on Taiwaní
The General Committee tonight recommended nine additional items for inclusion on the General Assemblyís agenda for its fifty-fifth session, which brings the total, including the 169 items it recommended for inclusion yesterday, to 178 items.
Following a debate with 68 speakers, the Committee decided not to recommend inclusion of a proposed item on the ìneed 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 respectedî.
The representative of China said there was only one China, and Taiwan had been an inseparable part of its territory since ancient times. The Government of the Peopleís Republic of China rightfully represented all Chinese, including the compatriots in Taiwan, in the United Nations and all organizations related to it. Thus, there was simply no such issue as Taiwanís so-called ìrepresentation in the United Nationsî.
As part of China, furthermore, he continued, Taiwan was not eligible to participate in any organization composed of sovereign States, including the United Nations.
The President of Nauru said it was a tragedy that the United Nations had not been able to recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan, because it was held ransom by only one country — the Peopleís Republic of China. Many of the Member States recognized Taiwan as an economic and financial partner, buying their goods and accepting their assistance when convenient. But in one of the worldís greatest hypocrisies, only a handful recognized Taiwan as a political entity. He failed to see any down side to the admittance of the Republic of China on Taiwan as a member of the Organization, be it as a full member or as an observer.
Statements on the proposed item were also made by the representatives of Senegal, San Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Solomon Islands, Belize, Argentina, Dominica, Burkina Faso, Marshall Islands, Gambia, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Chad, Liberia, El Salvador, Grenada, Sri Lanka, Chile, Myanmar,
General Committee – 1a – Press Release GA/9755 2nd Meeting (PM) 7 September 2000
Lesotho, Ireland, Mexico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Malawi, United Republic of Tanzania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Iraq, Syria, Democratic Peopleís Republic of Korea, South Africa, Libya, Brazil, Russian Federation, Belarus, Uzbekistan, United States, Saint Lucia, Cuba, Cyprus, Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Angola, Ukraine, Mali, Cambodia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Italy, United Kingdom, Mozambique, Kyrgyzstan, France, Gabon, Viet Nam, Lao Peopleís Democratic Republic, Yemen, Tunisia, Djibouti, Bhutan, Mongolia, Pakistan and the United Kingdom.
The representatives of Sweden and United Kingdom also spoke on other items.
The Committee recommended that the items on ìCooperation between the United Nations and the Council of Europeî, ìObserver status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assemblyî, ìTowards global partnershipsî, ìThe role of the United Nations in promoting a new global human orderî, ìThe role of diamonds in fuelling conflictî and ìReview of the problem of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in all its aspectsî be allocated to the plenary meetings.
It also recommended that the items on ìScale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of United Nations peacekeeping operationsî and ìFinancing of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritreaî be allocated to the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). It recommended that the item ìObserver status for the Inter-American Development Bank in the General Assemblyî be allocated to the Sixth Committee (Legal).
The General Committee will meet again at a date to be announced.
General Committee – 3 – Press Release GA/9755 2nd Meeting (PM) 7 September 2000
Committee Work Programme
The General Assemblyís General Committee met this evening to continue consideration of the organization of work of the Assemblyís fifty-fifth session, of its agenda and the allocation of items for the session.
The Committee had before it a memorandum by the Secretary-General on these questions (document A/BUR/55/1 and Add.1). The document contains, among other things, the list of items recommended for inclusion in the yearís agenda of the Assembly. Yesterday, the Committee recommended 169 items for inclusion. (See Press Release GA/9752 of 6 September.)
Among the items still to be considered are: observer status for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in the General Assembly; 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; towards global partnerships; and the role of the United Nations in promoting a new global human order.
Observer Status for International Institute for Democracy
PER NORSTROM (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the member States of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, said that the members had proposed the inclusion of the item. At present, 19 States were members of the Institute. International idea was an intergovernmental organization that was based on an international agreement between governments. The work of the idea was directly relevant to the work of the United Nations. It cooperated in building assisting countries in the building of democratization. International Idea had cooperated with the United Nations on several projects. It had also cooperated with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).
In light of that, it would be important to consolidate the links to the United Nations. He hoped that the General Committee would decide to include the proposed item and allocate it to the Sixth (Legal) Committee.
The General Committee then decided to include the item.
Question of Republic of China on Taiwan
IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said that discussion of the issue of the Republic of China on Taiwan was neither a futile debate nor a waste of time and energy. Neither was it an attempt to undermine the sovereignty of any Member State. The current debate was a necessity for the world to become aware of the injustice of a founding State of the United Nations. He used the term ìStateî because, among other reasons, Taiwanís population of 23 million people made it larger than many States on his own continent. Taiwanís contribution to the United Nations community was a visible, tangible reality that had existed for more than 50 years.
He said that with the end of the cold war and its attendant antagonism, the issue of the Republic of China on Taiwan must be raised and resolved here at the United Nations in the interest of the people that lived there. Taiwan had indeed expressed its will to grow towards democracy with a respect for human rights and the rule of law. It was true that Taiwan had contributed millions of dollars for countries suffering from humanitarian and natural disasters.
Finally, how could the United Nations deny the reality of the Republic of China on Taiwanís commitment to democracy? he asked. How can the Organization continue to ignore this peaceful dynamic country? Perhaps Member States would take notice of the two Yemens, the two Germanys and, most particularly, the two Koreas that were committed to a positive dialogue. Admission of Taiwan could not be an obstacle to reunification; it might even facilitate peace and cooperation within the region. Divided States could indeed sit together in the United Nations while awaiting political reunification. The United Nations could and must encourage the spirit of reconciliation in the interest of international peace and security
WANG YINGFAN (China) said that, after repeated failure in the past seven years, a small number of countries had once again raised the issue of so-called ìTaiwanís participation in the United Nationsî in an attempt to create ìtwo Chinasî and ìone China, one Taiwanî in the Organization. That was a violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as resolution 2758 of the General Assembly, which, adopted in 1971, acknowledged that ìthe representatives of the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China to the United Nations are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nationsî. He strongly opposed the inclusion of item 183 of the draft agenda in the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly.
He said there was only one China and Taiwan had been an inseparable part of its territory since ancient times. The 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, and the positions of the vast majority of Member States acknowledged that fact. The Government of the Peopleís Republic of China rightfully represented all Chinese, including the compatriots in Taiwan, in the United Nations and all organizations related to it. Thus, there is simply no such issue as Taiwanís so-called ìrepresentation in the United Nationsî.
As part of China, furthermore, Taiwan was not eligible to participate in any organization composed of sovereign States, including the United Nations, he said. As a left-over of Chinaís civil war, the question of Taiwan was, moreover, fundamentally different from the issue of ìtwo Germanyî and ìtwo Koreasî.
DOMINGOS AUGUSTO FERREIRA (Sao Tome and Principe) supported the right of the people of Taiwan to be represented in the international community, as well as the inclusion of item 183 of the draft agenda in the agenda of the fifty- fifth session of the General Assembly.
He recalled the inaugural address of Taiwanís new President last May, in which he affirmed the common culture of both sides of the Taiwan Strait and pledged that his government would take no step to change the status quo with regard to independence or unification, as long as Beijing showed no intention to use force against Taiwan, whose sovereignty, dignity and security he was mandated to maintain. Such a statement was an embrace of peace and dialogue and reflected Taiwanís commitment to the Charter of the United Nations.
BERNARD DOWIYOGO, President of Nauru, said this proposal was not a matter of creating two Chinas. It was a tragedy that the United Nations had not been able to recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan because it was held ransom by only one country — China. He joined those who spoke before in calling for the inclusion of the item and reiterated the plea for the recognition of the Republic of China on Taiwan as a legitimate self-governing democratic State that deserved representation in the United Nations. It was his strong belief that membership of the Republic of China on Taiwan in the United Nations would benefit the institution and its developing Members. He estimated that Taiwanís assessed contribution to the regular and peacekeeping budgets could be in excess of $20 million.
Many of the Member States present recognized Taiwan as an economic and financial partner, buying their goods and accepting their assistance when convenient. But, in one of the worldís greatest hypocrisies, only a handful recognized Taiwan as a political entity. Nauru failed to see any downside to the admittance of the Republic of China on Taiwan as a member of the Organization, be it as a full member or as an observer. In fact, it saw a lot of upside, if the resolution was allowed to take its due process.
CLIFFORD MAMBA (Swaziland) expressed his support for inclusion of the item. The Republic of China on Taiwan eagerly awaited the day that it would be admitted to the family of the United Nations. He was convinced that, if the matter was given all the attention it deserved, the historic imbalance that existed could be adequately addressed. To show its commitment, the Republic of China on Taiwan had created a new framework for a policy with China and cross-strait trade had increased as a result. A new course by the new leader of Taiwan represented a new beginning, which could not be ignored. He was convinced that with the support of the United Nations, a new chapter could be opened in the relations across the Strait.
RAVAN A.G. FARHADI (Afghanistan) said that in 1971 the Member States adopted resolution 2758, which said unambiguously that the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China was the only representative of the Chinese nation. In other words, they accepted the legal existence of a single China. The presence of Taiwan in this body would mean that there were two Chinas. The authorities in Taiwan should negotiate with the Government of China on these matters. The question of Taiwan should not appear on the agenda of the General Assembly.
ABDUKAKHOR NUROV (Tajikistan) said that the integrity of the Peopleís Republic of China was established in international agreements. There was only one China. The Government of the Peopleís Republic of China was the only legal government representing the whole of China. His Government believed that the resolution, adopted by the overwhelming majority of Member States, resolved the question and did not require any review. Therefore, his Government was opposed to the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
JEREMIAH MANELE (Solomon Islands) fully endorsed the statement made by the representative of Senegal. Taiwanís historic accomplishments in its own economic development and promotion of democracy had led it to assist many developing countries in both humanitarian and development areas.
Peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait was critical to the overall security of the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large, he said. The United Nations would be the best venue for building confidence between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Dialogue, rather than the use of force, was the best option for promoting reconciliation.
DINA SHOMAN (Belize) said that 23 million people on Taiwan were asking the international community to hear their cry. Those 23 million people were unique in many ways. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Alliance of Small Island States had played a crucial role in the Organization. They had observed that the special problems of islands needed to be addressed in a special fashion. They had realized that islands always presented a set of special challenges to international organizations. Island peoples were all unique and independent. Many islands, like Taiwan, made unique contributions to the international community. It would, therefore, be proper that the item should be included.
RICARDO LUIS BOCALANDRO (Argentina) said that the 1971 General Assembly resolution had made it exceedingly clear that the Peopleís Republic of China was the only legal representative of China. That resolution had also named China one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The need to respect the integrity of the Charter had led his country to support that theory. Taiwan was, therefore, an inalienable part of the Peopleís Republic of China. His delegation could not share the opinion that it would be reasonable to add a topic on this issue to the current agenda of the General Assembly.
Ms. THEODORO (Dominica) said that her delegation had joined with some 12 other Member States and sent a letter to the Secretary-General in August seeking to have the item included in the agenda of the fifty-fifth General Assembly. She urged recognition of the view that it was fundamentally wrong to exclude the 23 million people on the island of Taiwan from participating in the work of the United Nations. In support of that view, she drew the Committeeís attention to statistical data that showed that the Republic of China on Taiwan had the worldís ninth largest economy and was one of the fourth largest trading nations. Such data disputed the outmoded view that the item should be excluded.
Quoting the position of the European Union, she said that the healthy respect for the principle of justice, human rights and freedoms shown by the Republic of China on Taiwan was the envy of many other nations. In the entire history of the United Nations, no country with the record similar to that of Taiwan had been denied the right to participate in the work of the Organization. But for apparent geo-political reasons, the people of Taiwan were being denied. Participation denoted contribution, she said, and the United Nations would be deprived of Taiwanís contributions to the global community. Given the outstanding record of achievement in almost every field of human endeavour, the Republic of China on Taiwan had earned the right to have its particular circumstances reviewed.
MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso) said that his delegation was among those who pleaded for the representation of Taiwanís 23 million people in the work of the United Nations. Resolution 2758 was adopted by vote, not consensus. The fact was that Taiwan already existed as a sovereign State, with a territory, a population of 23 million inhabitants, diplomatic relations, and an independent, democratically elected government. It had all the characteristics of a State as recognized by international law.
Resolution 2758 was, he said, an anachronism. Taiwan respected the ideals of the United Nations, and had a sincere desire to improve inter-Strait relations. He hoped that both parties could find common ground to resolve the issue in the interest of peace, and that the people of Taiwan could determine their own fate, following the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
JACKEO A. RELANG (Marshall Islands) said that his country associated itself with previous speakers in supporting the inclusion of the item. It fully respected the sovereignty of individual countries and wished not to interfere in their domestic affairs. The Government and People of the Republic of China on Taiwan had every legitimate right to participate in the work of the United Nations. There were moral, legal, economic, political, historical and even human rights grounds on which the righteous voice of the 23 million people of the Republic of China on Taiwan deserved to be heard.
In the long run, there was a need for the United Nations to examine the Republic of China on Taiwanís unique situation, if the United Nations wished to achieve the goals of conflict prevention and international progress. The United Nations was the only forum for Taipei and Beijing to build mutual trust and to resolve the pending issues through peaceful dialogue. It was high time for the United Nations to facilitate the dialogue of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait in a manner of fraternity and equality.
JULIANA BALDEH (Gambia) said that the discussion was about inclusiveness. It defied logic that a country of 23 million people was consistently barred from participation in the work of the United Nations. It was her delegationís firm belief that the Millennium Summit was the time for historic decisions. The Republic of China on Taiwan had a lot to offer on such subjects as human rights and the matter of good governance. As for the information and technology revolution, the Republic of China on Taiwan was in the vanguard.
The Republic of China on Taiwan was one of the most successful examples of development in the twentieth century, she said. The Republic of China on Taiwan, over the years, had sent over 10,000 experts to train technicians, especially to developing countries. The United Nations should help the process of dialogue by considering how both sides of the Strait could participate in the United Nations. The delegation of the Gambia supported inclusion of the item.
BADER MOHAMMED E. AL-AWDI (Kuwait) said that the item had been decided on and resolved by resolution 2758. Any attempt to inscribe this item on the agenda for the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly ran counter to that resolution. There was only one China and its capital was Beijing.
MARIO H. CASTELLON DUARTE (Nicaragua) said his delegation supported the establishment of a working group to examine the question of Taiwan, so that its people could be represented in the United Nations. Taiwan met the qualifications of a Member State, including democracy and respect for human rights. It maintained relationships with other States, and, while originally a beneficiary of development aid, it now provided aid, particularly for natural disasters in South America. As a member it would make a positive contribution to the programmes of the United Nations.
MAHAMAT NOUR BABIKIR (Chad) urged the people of both the Republic of China on Taiwan and the Peopleís Republic of China to continue the dialogue that had begun, so as to achieve a positive outcome for the citizens of both nations. However, the freedom to participate in the United Nations should be open to the Republic of China on Taiwan.
In accordance with the rules of procedure, the question of Taiwan must be open to debate and interactive dialogue, if the millions of citizens living there were to be allowed to participate in the activities of the United Nations. By allowing such debate, the Organization would confirm its impartiality towards all peoples and express its will to specifically recognize the rights of the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
FAMATTA ROSE OSODE (Liberia) fully subscribed to the request for the inclusion of the current item in the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly. The dawn of a new millennium and the convening of the United Nations Millennium Summit should further stimulate the United Nations community to recognize the situation of the 23 million people of the Republic of China on Taiwan and should spur world governments to recognize their shared responsibilities to that end.
The geo-political landscape had changed over the last 50 years and the benefits of regional cooperation were tremendous. To that end, the United Nations was the best venue for building confidence between the people on both sides of the issue. The Committee could play a modest role in helping the General Assembly make a decision on the issue. In the meantime, perhaps the United Nations and other organizations could explore other ways to address the interest of the 23 million people of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
CARLOS ENRIQUE GARCIA GONZALEZ (El Salvador) said that since 1949 the people living on both side of the Taiwanese Strait had coexisted under two separate political systems. Two governments had developed with jurisdiction over their respective populations. Taiwan was a political and socio-economic reality that could not be ignored. The 23 million people living there could not be denied.
He went on to say that his delegationís position was based on the United Nations Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should not be interpreted as an initiative to divide a State or to interfere in the spirit of reconciliation. He believed that the freedoms and wishes of the Republic of China on Taiwan must be respected and not coerced. The United Nations had a responsibility to restore the legitimate rights of those people and to ensure that the growing tensions not become a factor of crisis. He supported recommendations for the creation of a working group of the General Assembly to examine the unique situation of the people of Taiwan.
JANICE CELESTINE (Grenada) subscribed to the proposal to include the item in the agenda. Much had changed in the Republic of China on Taiwan in the last year. The last election and the transition of power was evidence that the Republic of China on Taiwan was a democratic country. The elected government had, therefore, a legitimate right to represent its 23 million people in international organizations. The Republic of China on Taiwan used its vast resources for humanitarian assistance. It had given much to the world and had enriched Western civilization and was fully committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She implored the General Committee to take a fresh look at the matter.
JOHN DE SARAM (Sri Lanka) said his position was and had always been that there was only one China — the Peopleís Republic of China. That position had been consistent and firm. The Peopleís Republic of China was the sole representative of all people of China. Sri Lanka opposed the request for inclusion of the item.
CRISTIAN MAQUIEIRA (Chile) said a group of countries had asked for the item to be inscribed on the agenda. The matter had been definitively resolved by adoption of resolution 2758. He objected to the inclusion of the item.
WIN MRA (Myanmar) said that resolution 2758, adopted by the General Assembly, had resolved Chinaís representation in the United Nations. Any attempt to include the item in the agenda was not only out of place, but bound to fail again, as in years past. The question of Taiwan was purely an internal affair of China. He supported the position of the representative of the Peopleís Republic of China.
PHAKISO MUCHOCHOKO (Lesotho) recalled that over the years the item had been rejected by the Committee for inclusion on the agenda of the General Assembly. Resolution 2758 resolved the question for all time. Placing the item on the agenda would constitute interference in the internal affairs of a Member State. Lesotho, therefore, did not support the inclusion of item 183 on the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly.
JOHN DEADY (Ireland) reiterated his countryís adherence to the principle of one China and regarded the question settled by resolution 2758. He did not support the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
MARIA DEL PILAR ESCOBAR (Mexico) said she supported the territorial integrity of China and saw no reason to question resolution 2758. Therefore, she did not support the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
ASTONA BROWNE (Saint Kitts and Nevis) said her Government was acutely aware of the divergence of views on the matter before the Committee and wouldnít sit in judgement on the longstanding issue. The Chinese people could resolve the issues that confronted them. The United Nations could provide, however, a venue to advance the discussions on the question. For that reason, she supported inclusion of item 183 on the draft agenda.
ISSOUF OUMAR MAIGA (Malawi) said that once again the Committee had come together address the issue of membership of the Republic of China on Taiwan to the United Nations. He wished to remind delegates that the Republic of China on Taiwan had made it clear that it only represented the 23 million people on its island.
He went on to say that it was his strong belief that, based on the principles of universality enshrined in the United Nations Charter, the Organization should acknowledge Taiwanís accomplishments. It was important to note that the two Koreas were now showing the world that nations that had been separated for years could coexist and even pursue a dialogue towards reconciliation. In fact, both North and South had been represented in the United Nations for years, so it was hard to understand why the Organization had not recognized the Republic of China on Taiwan. The United Nations was the only organization that could build confidence between the two sides. Therefore, the Committee should seriously consider the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fifth General Assembly.
TUVAKO MANONGI (United Republic of Tanzania) said that over the years, his delegation had appealed to the Committee to turn down consideration of the item. That position remained unchanged. He remained convinced that the current dialogue was an attempt to undermine resolution 2758. The Committee should strive not to put into question the territorial integrity of the Peopleís Republic of China.
DENNIE M.J. WILSON (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said that just discussing the issue of Taiwan and the Peopleís Republic of China made people fidgety. Therefore, it was the duty of the United Nations to serve as a forum for fostering mutual understanding and goodwill between the two sides, as well as within the international community. Indeed, the reconciliation could be conducive to peace and security within the region.
He went on to say that today the United Nations stood at 189 Members and that it was imperative to give the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan a sense of pride, belonging and independence by making them the 190th Member State. Having not resolved the issue was a gross oversight that needed to be corrected, and the time was now.
MOHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) said that a request was being repeated once again, despite the fact that it failed every time it was submitted. The attempt to include the item was an attempt to intrude into the internal affairs of a member country. The international community took its decision regarding representation of the people of China in its resolution 2758. The Government of China was the sole representative of the people of China. His delegation rejected the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly.
FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said in 1971 the Assembly had adopted resolution 2758 by an overwhelming majority. Inclusion of the item was not consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter or the contents of the resolution. His delegation reiterated the position that recognized one China — the Peopleís Republic of China — and supported its representativeís position. He opposed inclusion of the item.
JE RYONG HONG (Democratic Peopleís Republic of Korea) said that the issue of representation of China at the United Nations had been resolved in 1971. It was his consistent position that the sole representative of the people of China was the Peopleís Republic of China. He opposed inclusion of the item.
MARTHINUS C.J. VAN SCHALKWYK (South Africa) said that his country established official relations with the Peopleís Republic of China after the adoption of the General Assemblyís resolution 2758 in 1971, and ended official relations with Taiwan at that time. South Africa regarded the question of Taiwan as an internal matter to be resolved by the Chinese people themselves. In view of that, his Government could not support inclusion of the item on the agenda.
JAMALEDDIN HAMIDA (Libya) said that since 1971, when the General Assembly adopted by an overwhelming majority its resolution 2758, the issue of Chinaís representation in the United Nations was categorically resolved. The Government in Beijing was the sole representative of all Chinese people. His Government reiterated its opposition to inclusion of the item, as it had in previous sessions. He appealed to those sponsoring the item to desist, so that the Chinese could resolve the matter themselves.
PAULO CORDEIRO (Brazil) said that his Government believed that resolution 2758 provided the definitive resolution to the question. Therefore, he could not support inclusion of the item on the agenda.
GENNADI M. GATILOV (Russia Federation) said he supported the Government of China as sole representative of the people of China. The matter did not require review. Russia was against the membership of Taiwan in the United Nations, or in any other organization whose membership consisted of sovereign States.
ANZHELA KORNELIOUK (Belarus) said her country was in favour of the territorial integrity of the Peopleís Republic of China, the sole legitimate representative of China in the world. Taiwan was not a sovereign State, and so it couldnít be included in the membership of the United Nations. She, therefore, opposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.
ALISHER VOHIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that his country supported resolution 2758 as well the principle of ìone Chinaî in all of the aspects of laws and government. The item under discussion should, therefore, not be placed on the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly.
DONALD S. HAYS (United States) said the policy of the United States towards China had been consistent and clear over the course of the last 28 years and the terms of six Presidents. President Clintonís administration, like every administration since President Nixon, had repeatedly reaffirmed that policy at the highest levels. There were three pillars of his countryís position on China: a ìOne Chinaî policy; cross-Strait problems should be resolved peacefully; and that it should be done through dialogue.
MICHELLE JOSEPH (Saint Lucia) reiterated support for the one-China policy. Resolution 2758 defined and conferred on the Peopleís Republic of China the legitimacy of representation of its people. She opposed inclusion of the item.
RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said the provisions of resolution 2758 remained in force and were fully relevant. Any attempts to revise the resolution would be a violation of international law and would create a very serious precedent. He recalled the need to respect the most sacred principles of international law and, therefore, the item should not be included.
CONSTANTINE MOUSHOUTAS (Cyprus), supporting the position of the Peopleís Republic of China, said that his delegation was not in favour of inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly, out of respect for the sovereignty of States enshrined in the Charter. He also felt that resolution 2758 had settled the issue of the representation of China definitively.
AHCENE KERMA (Algeria) said that his delegation had always felt that this question had been resolved conclusively by General Assembly resolution 2758. That resolution had indeed made it possible to restore the rights of the Peopleís Republic of China, thus confirming the principle of a single China. The refusal of successive General Committees to include the issue on any General Assembly agenda only demonstrated the determination of a large number of Member States to abide by the spirit and letter of the resolution. The similarity of the situation of the Republic of China on Taiwan to other cases, such as that of North and South Korea, had not been widely acknowledged or agreed upon. For all those reasons, the issue under debate should not be included in the agenda of the fifty-fifth General Assembly.
SHAHDAT HOUSSAIN (Bangladesh) said that his delegationís position had always been consistent on the item. It was a pity that this year, like previous years, the situation of the Republic of China on Taiwan had to be deliberated once again. When General Assembly resolution 2758 had been adopted in 1971 the question had been solved once and for all — the Peopleís Republic of China represented China in the United Nations and all its subsidiary bodies. As that fact had already been established, there was no need to consider acceptance of the inclusion of the current item.
Mr. ROUSHDY (Egypt)said that his Government had been the first State in the Middle East to recognize that the Peopleís Republic of China represented all the Chinese people, more than 45 years ago. Therefore, it was appropriate to reiterate that the Peopleís Republic of China was the one legitimate Government and Taiwan was an indivisible part of mainland China. He looked forward to the day that all the people of China would be united under one nation. Thus, he opposed inclusion of the item.
JOSEFA G. COELHO DA CRUZ (Angola) said the question must be settled by the two governments involved. There was, therefore, no reason to include the item in the agenda.
VOLODYMYR G. KROKHMAL (Ukraine) said that the Peopleís Republic of China was the only legitimate government of China, which included the territory of Taiwan. It was opposed to the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
ISSOUF O. MAIGA (Mali) said that his delegation fully supported the integrity of the Peopleís Republic of China. The question was settled by resolution 2758 and its provisions remained in force. They, therefore, opposed inclusion of the item on the agenda.
OUCH BORITH (Cambodia) said that Cambodia has always regarded the question of the province of Taiwan as an internal matter of China. With resolution 2758, the General Assembly affirmed the one China principle in an exact manner. Cambodia, therefore, strongly rejected any move to include the item in the agenda of the fifty-fifth General Assembly.
GORAN B. STEVCEVSKY (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said consideration of the item should not be delayed. It was in the interest of the Organization to have the 23 million people of the Republic of China on Taiwan participate in the work of the United Nations. His Government supported inclusion of the item.
ALISON DRAYTON (Guyana) said she was opposed to inclusion of the item. There was only one China — the Peopleís Republic of China — and Taiwan was an integral part of China. She objected strongly to the proposal to include the item.
Mr. YESSENBAYER (Kazakhstan) said he supported the position of the representative of the Peopleís Republic of China. Taiwan was a part of China and the question of Taiwan was an internal affair of China.
MAURO POLITI (Italy) said the question of the representation of China had been decided by resolution 2758. The Government of the Peopleís Republic of China was the only representative of the Chinese people. It was the responsibility of the Government of the Peopleís Republic of China to pursue a dialogue between its people. He opposed inclusion of the item.
STEWART ELDON (United Kingdom) said that although the United Kingdom welcomed the fact of a democratic election in Taiwan, he was not convinced of the arguments in favor of inclusion of the item. He opposed inclusion.
Mr. JOUVIA (Mozambique) reiterated his commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter, and, in that regard, said that the issue currently being debated had been settled by the General Assembly in 1971.
Zamira Tohtohodjaeva (Kyrgyzstan) supported the position of the Peopleís Republic of China and opposed including the item on Taiwan in the General Assemblyís agenda out of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China, as well as the provisions outlined in resolution 2758.
FRANCOIS ALABRUNE (France) said that his delegationís position was based on respect for resolution 2758. He, therefore, recognized Taiwan as an integral part of Chinese territory and was not in favour of including the item on the agenda of the fifty-fifth General Assembly.
ALFRED MOUNGARA-MOUSSOTSI (Gabon) agreed with the overwhelming majority of Member States that there was only one China. The General Assembly had decided that the Peopleís Republic of China would be the only legitimate representative of the nationís people, thus excluding Taiwan. The question before the Committee was, therefore, not worthy of inclusion in the agenda on the fifty- fifth General Assembly.
HOANG CHI TRUNG (Viet Nam) said that it had been his countryís consistent policy to uphold the principles of the United Nations as enshrined in the Charter, namely respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations. His delegation therefore consistently pursued the ìone Chinaî policy.
ALOUNKEO KITTIKHOUN (Lao Peopleís Democratic Republic) said that the question was not new and as usual his Government was against placing the item on the agenda for two main reasons. China has always been one nation and the separation was due to temporary circumstances only. The Chinese people alone should deal with the matter. The second reason was that resolution 2758 very correctly resolved the issue.
M. AL-HADDAD (Yemen) said that her delegation could not agree to the tabling of the item under discussion, being in agreement with resolution 2758 adopted in 1971. > OTHMAN JERANDI (Tunisia) said that there was only one China. Resolution 2758 settled the matter once and for all. He was, therefore, against the inclusion of the item on the agenda.
Mr. BOUDINE (Djibouti) said that including the item on the agenda was not consistent with the previous actions of the Assembly. His delegation, as in years past, would oppose the inclusion of the item on the agenda of the fifty- fifth session of the General Assembly.
TASHI TSERING (Bhutan) was opposed to the inclusion of the proposed item.
TSERENPIL DORJSURSEN (Mongolia) believed that there was no compelling reason for the inclusion of the item. The Assembly, by its resolution 2758 in 1971, had restored the lawful right of the Peopleís Republic of China and had settled the issue of the representation of its people in the United Nations.
SHAMSHAD AHMAD (Pakistan) noted the long debate on the proposal to include the item. Taiwan was an integral part of China, and no amount of debate could alter that reality. Taiwan, as part of China, had no right whatsoever to join the United Nations. Pakistan, like most others, believed that any attempt to include the item would constitute a violation of the Charter. The yearly debate was wasteful. The time needed to be devoted to more substantive issues. He strongly opposed the proposal for the inscription of the item.
The Committee decided not to recommend the inclusion of the item in the agenda of the fifty-fifth session.
Role of Diamonds in Fuelling Conflict
Mr. ELDON (United Kingdom) said the reasons for proposing the item had been expressed in a letter to the General Assembly a while ago. The President of Sierra Leone had earlier today strongly supported the inclusion of the item.
This was not a single track process. He had taken note of the proposals from a number of quarters. The group of countries in the Kimberly Working Group, among others, was looking at several proposals. Given the wide range and nature of the issue, the item should be allocated to the plenary of the General Assembly.
The Committee decided to include the item on the agenda.
* *** *
14/09/2001
 | Press Release GA/9908 |
General Committee
Fifty-sixth Session
1st, 2nd & 3rd Meetings (AM, PM & Night)
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 188-ITEM GENERAL ASSEMBLY AGENDA,
INCLUDING PROPOSAL FOR CONVENTION AGAINST HUMAN CLONING
‘Republic of China on Taiwan’ Not Recommended for Inclusion
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 92 speakers on the item, 26 spoke in favour of including the item in the agenda and 66 spoke against.
Expressing support for inclusion 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, Paraguay, El Salvador, Panama, Malawi, Solomon Islands, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Dominica and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
Speaking against inclusion 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, 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.
On other matters, the Committee recommended that the Assembly authorize meetings during the main part of its fifty-sixth session by the Committee on Relations with the Host Country, the Executive Board of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the resumed first session of the Commission for Social Development, acting as the preparatory committee for the Second World Assembly on Aging.
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.
(page 1b follows)
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.
* *** *
11/09/2002
 | Press Release GA/10043 |
Fifty-seventh General Assembly
General Committee
1st and 2nd Meetings (AM & PM)
GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS AGENDA FOR FIFTY-SEVENTH
SESSION TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Decides Not To Recommend Inclusion of Item
On ‘Representation of the Republic of China (Taiwan)’
In two meetings today, the General Committee of the fifty-seventh General Assembly recommended that the Assembly include 166 items on its agenda for the session. The Committee recommended that the current session recess not later than Wednesday, 11 December 2002, and close on Monday, 8 September 2003. It also recommended the adoption of the Assembly’s programme of work and the allocation of new items to its substantive committees.
The Committee also recommended to the Assembly that during the main part
of the session, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) complete its work by 1 November; the Sixth Committee (Legal) complete its work by 7 November; the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) complete its work by 8 November; the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) by
22 November; and the Second (Economic and Financial) and Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committees by 6 December.
Concerning two new items being considered for inclusion in the Assembly’s agenda, the Committee decided to allocate matters related to the observer status of the Asian Development Bank, and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development to the Sixth Committee. In addition, it decided to include on the Assembly’s agenda matters related to the observer status of various other organizations, including the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance –- which had been deferred last year — as well as Partners in Population in Development.
In other action, the Committee decided to postpone consideration of the inclusion of the item on the “Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte” to a later date. It also decided to defer consideration of the item “Question of the Malagasy islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India”.
Addressing the Committee on the decision to include the item “peace, security and reunification of the Korean Peninsula”, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the Assembly’s consideration of the issue would help further the shared noble aims of the Joint Declaration of 2000. Echoing that sentiment, the representative of the Republic of Korea, said high-level dialogues had resumed between North and South Korea, as had talks for cooperation in various fields.
After a lengthy debate, which included interventions from 82 speakers, the Committee again decided not to recommend that the Assembly include on its agenda the item on the “representation of the Republic of China (Taiwan)”.
Introducing the item, the representative of the Gambia said the Committee should stop pretending that a dynamic political, economic, social entity like the Republic of China on Taiwan did not exist. Countries round the world recognized its existence –- in trade and finance, in business and investment. The United Nations’ failure to recognize that was a grave anomaly, and the time had come to correct it at the fifty-seventh session. Pretending that the Republic of China on Taiwan did not exist would not make it go away.
Urging that the item be rejected from inclusion, the representative of China said that the effort made by the Gambia and a very few other countries to introduce it each year constituted a violation of the principles of the Charter. He said that there was but one China in the world, and Taiwan had been an inseparable part of China’s territory since ancient times. The Chinese Government had always stood for peaceful reunification. Efforts of some countries to include this item for consideration wasted the time and resources of the Member States and the General Committee.
Those representatives speaking in favour of including the item on the agenda said that the Assembly’s refusal to acknowledge the Republic of China (Taiwan) left the 23 million inhabitants of that island unrepresented at the United Nations. Its inclusion would contribute to the achievement of peace, stability and development in Asia, the Pacific and the world, as well as facilitate a dialogue for the peaceful reconciliation of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China.
Referring to General Assembly resolution 2758 (1971), those representatives speaking against inclusion of the item made reference to the “one China” principle and to the determination made in 1971 that the Government of the People’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative of the people of China. The understanding of the question of Taiwan as an internal Chinese affair was reiterated, as was the desire that the two entities be reconciled by peaceful means.
The representative of France added that his country, while keeping its position of past years, urged the parties to commence a fruitful dialogue for reconciliation.
The following representatives spoke in support of the item: Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Swaziland and Tuvalu.
Speaking against were Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone,
South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
In the afternoon, the Committee recommended the allocation of various items to the Assembly’s substantive Committees. It referred to the Fourth Committee matters related to the “implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”. The item “Question of Cyprus” was also allocated to the Fourth Committee. The item “cooperation between the United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union” was allocated to the Sixth Committee.
Items related to the follow-up of the outcome of the General Assembly special session on children were allocated to the Second and Third Committees. It also recommended that matters related to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) be allocated to the Second and Third Committees.
The Committee also recommended that a high-level plenary meeting be held on 16 September to consider how to support the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). It also decided to devote one day of plenary meetings, on
4 December, to mark the end of the United Nations Year for Cultural Heritage. Two days of plenary meetings, on 9 and 10 December, would be devoted to the item “Oceans and the Law of the Sea” and the commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the opening for signature of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. It also decided to recommend two plenary meetings on 26 November be devoted to the outcome of the International Year of Volunteers and its follow-up.
The Committee also decided to draw the Assembly’s attention to its resolution 55/282 of 7 September 2001, which declared 21 September of each year as the International Day of Peace.
Speaking on other matters were the representatives of Togo and Portugal.
The memorandum on the organization of the Assembly’s fifty-seventh regular session is contained in document A/BUR/57/1 dated 21 August 2002.
The General Committee will meet again at time to be announced.
* *** *