Talk:Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China

Talk One
The article is in error when it says: "Until the 1970s, most countries recognized the Republic of China on Taiwan while the communist bloc recognized the People's Republic of China."

Perhaps mention should be made of the fact that the PRC was also responsible for delays in the dates of diplomatic relations and not merely other countries. For example, Israel was among the first 16 countries to recognize the PRC, and did so officially and publicly on the 9th of January, 1950. However, the PRC only deigned to allow diplomatic relations with Israel from 1992 due to policies associated with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Cold War.

I admit this is something of a nitpick, and that's why it's here on the discussion page. Personally, I feel the above sentence quoted from the article is misleading and I welcome other's views on this.

For further reference see: "Sino-Israel Relations", Xiaoxing Han; Journal of Palestine Studies, 22(2), 1993, pp. 62-77 - 84.228.52.36 17:23, April 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * It says "most" not "all". In fact, the UK recognised the PRC around then as well - but still, these countries were a minority. the PRC opposed establishing diplomatic relations with the state of Israel because the official policy opposed Zionism. --Sumple (Talk) 00:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As you say, the UK recognised the PRC in 1950 ( http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/bevin/ ), whereas the article states that the UK recognised the PRC in 1972. Is this incorrect, or are both correct?  It's possible (perhaps even likely) that UK broke off relations with the PRC and then re-established them later on.  A similar thing happened with UK recognition of the USSR (earlier dates obviously). -86.133.243.52 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * After checking, the UK reocgnised China in 1950, and charge d'affaires were sent in 1954. 1972 was when it was upgraded to ambassadorial-rank. --Sumple (Talk) 08:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

PRC and Vatican
The press says the PRC and Vatican broke diplomatic relations in 1951. When did they established diplomatic relations? This article has no mention. &mdash; Instantnood 12:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the report was referring to the cutting of ties between the Vatican and the catholic churches in China in 1951. PRC never established diplomatic relations with the Vatican. --Sumple (Talk) 02:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Possible. But the report was clearly referring to the breaking of diplomatic ties between Beijing and the Holy See. &mdash; Instantnood 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you have a cite for this report? Or upload an image perhaps? --Sumple (Talk) 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually heard about it on TV news. Here's some news articles I've found by searching on Google:      . &mdash; Instantnood 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I wonder why there's no mention of it here or on govt websites? --Sumple (Talk) 08:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right.. So I'm wondering what kind of ties did they have b'efore 1951, if thats not diplomatic relations. &mdash; Instantnood 15:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal theory is that the situation was confused up until 1951 because it wasn't clear that ROC regime would survive, or the Vatican was simply delaying taking a stance to await the outcome of the civil war... or the religious policies of the PRC. Maybe. --Sumple (Talk) 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Holy See maintains until present day diplomatic relations with the ROC. This BBC report (the last paragraph) says clearly diplomatic ties between the Holy See and Beijing were severed in 1951. &mdash; Instantnood 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Two Chinas, footnotes, misc cleanup
The footnotes are great, except they aren't. Since the text isn't inline, you lose track of the subject. For example, #14, Liberia. "Diplomatic relations were restored on August 10, 1993." Restored with who? ROC or PRC? Restored from what? It then says Liberia flip-flopped in 1997, and normalized in 2003. I know Liberia is constantly undergoing revolutions (poor Liberia) but is their attempt at "Two China" still in effect?

Are there any other nations that have attempted to have a Two Chinas policy? Please expand!

- SchmuckyTheCat 01:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC) -


 * Kiribati tried it but failed. --Sumple (Talk) 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What about Papua New Guinea and Macedonia? As far as I recall Kiribati was not the only state in which both embassies operated at the same time for a brief period. &mdash; Instantnood 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep those too, but Kiribati was for longer (I think) because of the tracking station issue. --Sumple (Talk) 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the tracking station issue? For how long did both ROC and PRC embassies operate in each of these sovereign states? &mdash; Instantnood 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the dates. The tracking station issue was that the PRC had an aerospace tracking station (used to track sattelites and the Shenzhou spaceships) in Kiribati. It was the PRC's only land-based tracking station in the south pacific, so when kiribati switched recognition, PRC did not cut ties immediately in the hope that they would not have to move the tracking station. --Sumple (Talk) 08:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So they finally related the tracking station right? Where was it moved to? Is there any information on it? &mdash; Instantnood 15:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ROC to PRC transition
It is interesting witch states of these that recognised PRC have had relations with ROC before 1949 and for how long (for example USA from 1912). Currently very few have such notes. Alinor 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This Article is Not Usable
This article must be regarded as being of unacceptable quality, because it fails to make any distinction between “recognition” and “diplomatic relations” for most (but not all) the data entries in the lists. Note that the article title refers to "diplomatic relations", while the list headings refer to "recognition", with the implication that these are the same.

“Recognition” solely requires an authoritative formal announcement and it does not imply any diplomatic agents will be appointed nor that there will be any diplomatic mission in either capital city. As a result of the failure to make this distinction much of the article is confusing or incorrect.

I have checked three examples where I thought the data must clearly be wrong about recognition.

1) Yugoslavia is reported as recognising PRC on 2 January 1955. Recognition was actually five years earlier. The United Nations Yearbook 1950, p.421, quotes Yugoslavia as recognising prior to 13 January 1950 – see http://cdn.un.org/unyearbook/yun/pdf/1950/1950_434.pdf

2) Ceylon is reported as recognising PRC on 7 February 1957. An article in the Sri Lanka Daily News of 6 October 2010, “Pioneers who promoted Sri Lanka - China Friendship”, by Ananda Goonatilleke, President of the Sri Lanka - China Friendship Association, says “The Government of Ceylon recognized the Peoples' Republic of China as a sovereign state on January 6, 1950”. See http://archives.dailynews.lk/2010/10/06/fea05.asp

3) Norway is reported as recognising PRC on 5 October 1954. The PRC Embassy in Norway makes the situation crystal clear. “The Kingdom of Norway recognized the People's Republic of China on 7th January 1950 and established diplomatic relations with China on 5th October 1954. The two countries exchanged ambassadors in 1955.” See http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceno/eng/zngx/t110722.htm

There would only need to be a simple correction, if all the entries under “Recognition of the PRC” actually were accurate for diplomatic relations. However, the entries for the Soviet Union and for the UK are clearly for recognition and hence different from the above three examples. The entry for the UK actually makes the correct distinction and gives the two different dates for recognition and diplomatic relations, as is plain in notes (4) and (5).

In view of these findings, it cannot be assumed that any of the data is correct, without further checking of every single entry.

PeterPedant (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Map at top of page
I note that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is shaded black, which according to the key is the colour to denote Chinese communist-controlled territories. This is misleading and should be amended either by marking the RoC grey ("Countries not recognised by or not recognising the PRC are in grey.") or by giving her her own colour to indicate her unique position in respect of this phenomenon. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to add flags to the list
The list does not contain the flags of these countries, as it normally does. Such a problem makes it difficult to fast-scroll the list. As a result, I think it is better to add flags to these countries.--The193thdoctor (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

First Western country to recognise China
There seems to be a debate about which Western country was the first to recognise China: the UK, Sweden, or Switzerland. Part of the dispute is explained by the difference between "recognition" and "diplomatic relations", but not all. Perhaps the remainder is explained by the difference between "diplomatic relations" and "exchange of Ambassadors"? At any rate, the present article explicitly claims that Switzerland was the first to establish relations: "first western country to establish diplomatic relations". But elsewhere Wikipedia grants the same honour to Sweden ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Sweden_relations ), as does the Chinese Ambassador to Sweden here ( http://www.chinaembassy.se/eng/sgxw/t1614545.htm ).

BSSR and UaSSR
From 1949 to 1992, the government of the People's Republic of China considered the Belarusian Socialist Soviet Republic and the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic to be part of the territory of the Soviet Union, and the two Soviet Republics did not have diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.-- 逐风天地 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s because BSSR and UaSSR were the founding members of the United Nations, they have separate seats in the UN General Assembly and voted the PRC in the UN system in 1971. —174.95.137.59 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Guyana and Ecuador also voted the PRC in the UN system in 1971, but the two countries did not have diplomatic relations with the PRC.--逐风天地 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Bhutan
Bhutan has recognized the government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China for many years. -- 逐风天地 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Free Territory of the RoC on the Map
I see that someone has already addressed this above, but no action has been taken on this after more than four years, so--why is the territory controlled by the Republic of China (Taiwan, Kinmen and Matsu) labelled in black, implying that it's part of the PRC. Regardless of one's opinion on the dispute, Wikipedia's norm is to treat the RoC as a separate entity on maps; I find this especially important on a map depicting recognition of the PRC. As said above by the poster in 2020, the RoC should either be listed in grey with the other nations refusing to recognize the PRC, or listed in its own color as the RoC--similarly to how the PRC is listed separately on the RoC 's own article. ConnallES (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)