Africa-Press – Tanzania. AT a recent media briefing in Dar es Salaam, Chinese Ambassador to Tanzania, Ambassador Chen Mingjian delivered a firm and pointed message: “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 is unshakable, and the one-China principle must be upheld.” With diplomatic seriousness, and just a hint of “we’ve said this a thousand times already”, she reiterated a position that remains a cornerstone of China’s foreign policy.
But in a world increasingly fond of reinterpreting old rules, the Ambassador was not here for ambiguity.
Let us dive into this geopolitical deep end, with just enough historical anchoring to keep our heads above water, and maybe a splash of humor to keep things interesting.
What’s Resolution 2758, and why does China keep bringing it up?
To understand the fuss, one must go back to 1971. That year, during the 26th session of the United Nations General Assembly, 23 countries including Tanzania, co-sponsored a resolution with a singular goal: restore the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at the UN and expel the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek.
The text of Resolution 2758 is short but decisive. It recognizes the PRC as the only legitimate representative of China to the UN and declares that the seat previously occupied by Chiang Kai-shek’s representatives was, in the UN’s words, “unlawfully” held.
This resolution passed with a strong majority and effectively ended the international debate within the UN framework about who speaks for China.
The resolution didn’t name or redefine territories, nor did it say anything explicit about “two Chinas” or a “split family.” It was simple: one seat, one China, one government and that is the PRC.
For Ambassador Chen, and indeed for Beijing, that is game, set, and match and in her speech-since 1971, UN documentation has reflected the outcome of Resolution 2758. According to UN legal opinions, Taiwan is considered a part of China and does not hold a separate or independent status within the UN system.
The so-called “authorities” in Taipei, in the UN’s own legal wording, do not enjoy any form of recognized government status.
To say this makes some people uncomfortable and hence, put it put it mildly. Still, according to Ambassador Chen, this resolution does more than allocate a seat at the UN table. It forms the backbone of the one-China principle, a diplomatic and political doctrine that says-emphatically that there is only one China, and the government in Beijing is its sole legitimate authority.
In that view, any attempt to grant Taiwan independent participation in international bodies is not just a diplomatic faux pas, it is a political provocation.
But who is distorting what?
Here’s where things get dicey. Ambassador Chen accused certain countries without naming names of deliberately distorting the meaning and implications of Resolution 2758.
Some Western politicians and think tanks have recently floated the idea that Taiwan’s international status is “undetermined,” and that, therefore, it should be allowed some form of representation in global institutions, including the UN.
For Beijing, that’s not just bending the truth, it is a full-blown political yoga pose.
To the Chinese government, such moves challenge China’s sovereignty, violate international law, and undermine the UN itself. Ambassador Chen made the case that these reinterpretations aren’t about democratic values or international inclusion; they’re about using Taiwan as a strategic pawn to counterbalance China’s growing influence.
The Ambassador didn’t just stick to the UN resolution. Like any good speech rooted in political tradition, hers came complete with a historical tour.
She traced Taiwan’s status back to ancient times, highlighting its shared culture, ancestry, and language with the mainland. Fast forward to 1895, Taiwan was ceded to Japan after China lost the First Sino-Japanese War. But after WWII, the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Proclamation (1945) both laid the groundwork for Taiwan’s return.
By 1945, Japan had surrendered, and Taiwan was handed back to China as part of the post-war international consensus.
For Ambassador Chen, these wartime agreements, along with Japan’s formal surrender documents, form the legal and historical foundation for Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan.
She emphasized this was not a unilateral Chinese position, but a cornerstone of the post-WWII international order.
And she has a point: the U.S., UK, and Soviet Union were all signatories to these documents. Elaborating, Ambassador Chen wondered why the United States again, resorted to backtracking on its commitments, referencing the three joint communiqués signed by China and the U.S., in which America acknowledged that there is only one China and that the PRC is its sole legal government.
A question to the West: If not China, then who?
Indeed, if the representatives expelled by Resolution 2758 didn’t represent China, then who did? That rhetorical question isn’t just clever; it is the diplomatic equivalent of a mic drop.
According to Beijing’s view, this is the final word. There is no second Chinese seat, no halfway compromise. In her words, “There is but one China in the world.” And regardless of changes on the island or shifts in international sentiment, she insisted the outcome will be the same: eventual reunification is not only inevitable but unstoppable.
Africa’s role and a friend in deed
In case you thought this was all about East Asia and the West, the Ambassador devoted special attention to Tanzania, a long-time ally and one of the co-sponsors of Resolution 2758.
She praised Tanzania’s role, especially that of Ambassador Dr Salim Ahmed Salim, who not only advocated for China’s rightful seat in the UN but also helped draft and refine Resolution 2758. China has not forgotten this support. And the sentiment is mutual: from the historic TAZARA Railway to ongoing development projects, the two countries have forged what Ambassador Chen called “a brotherhood.”
With the 50th anniversary of TAZARA’s completion and the 80th anniversary of Taiwan’s post-WWII return to China both falling this year, the timing couldn’t be more symbolic.
By and large, Ambassador Chen’s message was loud, clear, and strategically timed: Resolution 2758, she argued, is not a vague diplomatic gesture but a legal and political cornerstone of the current international system.
Any attempt to challenge it is not just a jab at China, it is a threat to the post-WWII global order itself and as a reminder: there’s only one seat at the table and China’s already sitting in it.
For More News And Analysis About Tanzania Follow Africa-Press
