The Taiwan case: How to Kick Russia Out of the UN Easily! | Knowledge is Power
How the US and the Kremlin twisted a simple case on expulsion of trespassers into lies about the UN.
.
Did the UN transfer a membership from Taiwan to the People’s republic of China in 1971?
✅ Legal Clarification: States vs. Governments
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) are not states in and of themselves.
These are governments or regimes claiming authority over the same state: China.
The state is the international legal person known as China (as per its continuous existence through various governments).
The UN Charter and international law concern the membership of states, not governments.
⚖️ UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (1971)
Did not address or alter the status of “China” as a member state.
The resolution recognized the PRC as the only legitimate representative of the state of China to the United Nations.
It did not expel the ROC or consider it a separate member state — because the ROC had never been recognized as a separate state in the UN context.
No question of succession or continuity arose: China remained the same member state, but with a different government representing it.
📘 UN Terminology and Precedent
“China” is the state listed in UN membership records, both before and after 1971.
The representatives from the PRC after 2758 replaced those of the ROC without changing the identity of the member state.
This is not “continuity” of a government, nor a new state — it is a case of representative recognition within an existing state membership.
🔎 Conclusion
The PRC and ROC were governments claiming to represent the same sovereign state, China.
UN Resolution 2758 resolved which government was entitled to represent China, the existing member state.
It had nothing to do with succession, continuity of states, or creation or termination of state membership.
This distinction — between states and governments — is essential, especially when contrasting the China case with cases like the USSR–Russia claim, where the actual statehood and legal identity of the member is in dispute.
The relevance of General Assembly Resolution 2758 to the Russia–UN membership issue lies not in any supposed analogy of “continuity” (which doesn't apply in the China case either), but in its procedural and legal handling of unlawful representation at the United Nations. Here's how it directly supports the legal position that Russia’s presence is invalid:
Next: how the US lie was exposed and Taiwan was removed with a simple majority resolution.
Taiwan, Then Russia — America's 50 years Strangulation of the United Nations | Knowledge is Power
In 1971 the US’ lie that a country which was not even a member of the United Nations, had a veto, was exposed. 20 years later the same person, GHW Bush, told the world the exact same lie, about Russia. And no one has pointed it out. Until now.Thanks for reading Knowledge is power! This post is public so feel free to share the truth.
.