The EU questions Resolution 2758, sparking controversy over its stance on the Taiwan issue

The EU openly opposes our position! After we stated that Resolution 2758 has completely resolved the issue of China's representation in the United Nations, including Taiwan, the EU openly opposed our position! On October 7, the EU spokesperson issued a statement via email, saying: UN Resolution 2758 is very brief, only 150 words, and in these 150 words, the word "Taiwan" does not appear.

The resolution changed China's representation in the United Nations from the "representative of Chiang Kai-shek" to the representative of the Government of the People's Republic of China. The EU spokesperson also said: As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China bears a special responsibility in maintaining a rules-based international order, the UN Charter, and international law. This includes the prohibition of the use of force and the maintenance of international peace and security. It is obvious that the EU is openly opposing our position on the issue of Resolution 2758.

It is evident that the EU's argument is extremely absurd. We need to remind the EU that when it suggested diplomatic relations with us, the EU clearly stated that Taiwan is part of China, and the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate representative of China, and the right to represent Taiwan is inherently included within China. Does the EU not know this? The EU constantly claims to have a special responsibility in upholding the UN order.

Then we ask the EU: In the UN documents, the expression related to Taiwan is "Taiwan Province of China". Does the EU really ignore this? Is it a move to safeguard the UN order for the EU to make a fuss about Resolution 2758? The EU's actions are clearly an intentional challenge to the UN order, a step back in history, betrayal of trust, and an attempt to incite tensions on the Taiwan issue, which is despised by people. Obviously, the Taiwan issue will be resolved by us, and the EU's nonsense will not change this outcome.

Original article: www.toutiao.com/article/1845307345159177/

Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author.