The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long tried to distort the meaning of UN Resolution 2758, signed on Oct. 25, 1971, attempting to link it with Beijing’s “one China principle” to strangle Taiwan’s ability to engage in international events. However, recently, that subterfuge has elicited the attention and concern of democratic countries.
The CCP has consistently attempted to rewrite the language of diplomatic documents, such as with the US-People’s Republic of China (PRC) Joint Communique of 1979, in which Washington and Beijing first mentioned and defined the “one China” concept.
On Oct. 21, 1971 — just days before the signing of Resolution 2758, during the wrangling for who was to represent China in the UN, the PRC in China or the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan — then-Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) and then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger were in Beijing, discussing the wording of the UN resolution.
In the official US Department of State memorandum of the conversation, Zhou referred to how the British government “acknowledges” the PRC’s position. “Not recognize, but acknowledge, so for lawyers there might be a slight differentiation between ‘acknowledge and recognize.’ That is a question of international law,” he said. That position was made clear in the first of the Three Joint Communiques in 1972, the only one Zhou was involved in.
However, that changed by the second communique. Article 7 of the English version of the US-PRC Joint Communique of 1979, released on Dec. 15, 1978, states that the US “acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China,” while the Chinese version states that the US “recognizes China’s position, that is, that there is only one China, and that Taiwan is a part of China.”
Similarly, Article 1 of the Chinese-language version of the 1982 US-PRC Joint Communique released on Aug. 17, 1982, states that the US “recognizes China’s position, that there is only one China, and that Taiwan is a part of China.” The official English version simply states that the US “acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”
In his 2003 book Rein in at the Brink of the Precipice: American Policy Toward Taiwan and US-PRC Relations, former US Department of State principal director of the policy planning staff Alan Romberg included other examples of CCP wordplay. He said that the practice of rewriting the US’ position on “one China” in the Chinese-language versions of the joint communiques became normalized over many years.
In the Shanghai Communique of 1972, the US “acknowledged” the Chinese authorities’ “one China” stance that “Taiwan is a part of China,” and in the Chinese translations of the communique, “acknowledged” is translated as renshi (認識, acknowledged), not chengren (承認, recognized). All of the people involved at the time accepted that this was an appropriate way to translate the word “acknowledge.”
Moreover, Kissinger believed that one advantage of using English to negotiate the wording of the communique was that, in the event of any dispute, the English version would prevail.
Zhou was a foreign relations expert. He pointed out in October 1971 that there was a discrepancy between the terms “acknowledge” and “recognize” in international law, but as the Chinese versions of the subsequent 1979 and 1982 joint communiques strayed from that wording, it is difficult not to conclude that the CCP was engaging in a form of lawfare.
Now that the issue of “motherland” has come to the fore in public debate, we need more clarity on the uses of the Chinese terms for “recognize” and “acknowledge” in the Three Joint Communiques.
Chen Yi-nan is an arbitrator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS