@ComradeEd@lemmygrad.ml @satori@hexbear.net Having gone through my own reading rabbit-hole on UN diplomacy in the past, I can clarify: The vote was on passing the “important question” scheme that the US first devised in 1961. Every time a motion in the UNGA was put forth to restore the UN seat to China, the US inserted a preliminary amendment to have the motion considered a “important question,” which would require a supermajority rather than a simple majority for it to then pass. This blocked China’s membership for 10 years until 1971. This is why the vote in the video has the US and its underlings voting in the affirmative and why the Assembly laughed, because by the US’ turn to vote, it was already clear that the UNGA majority would reject the supermajority amendment and thus be able to restore China’s membership.
The end came abruptly for the Taiwanese delegation. On October 26, 1971, the General Assembly narrowly rejected the “important question” resolution, which would have required a two-thirds majority to replace Taiwan with the Communist government. Anticipating the inevitable next step, the Taiwanese delegation walked out of the General Assembly moments before the lopsided vote that formally evicted them. In that instant, Chiang Kai-shek’s government lost all rights at the United Nations, including the coveted council seat. It was just as well that the Taiwanese had left. Many delegations broke into wild applause—and even dancing—as the results were announced. Finally, after twenty-five years of exclusion. Communist China would be in the inner sanctum.
Bosco, D. 2009. Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World. Oxford.
Having both Marx and Lenin speak out against a publication shows how this rag has been consistently on the wrong side of any struggle for the past two centuries. Their modern flashy r/designporn-bait cover designs and tidy site UI hides the sociopathy of their publication history.
For starters, the modern day sinophobia of the Economist is no surprise. They’re the original China haters, and I mean that with zero exaggeration. They’ve been calling for war and imperialism against China for two centuries now. They lobbied in the UK for the Second Opium War using sociopathic mercantilist justifications:
It’s an unsurprising stance when their founder literally earned his fortune from the forced opium trade imposed against China following the First Opium War.
The British capital-centric profit driven agenda they’ve followed puts them even on the wrong side of a “liberal” perspective of history. They’ve historically opposed the UK abolitionist movement, protesting that “the boycott they proposed of all goods made using slave labour would hurt British consumers and punish slaves.”
They were the only British publication to support the Confederacy, arguing that:
In a mask-off moment, they said that the slavery issue was secondary compared to the lucratively low cotton tariffs the Confederacy could offer, which made Marx himself ridicule the rag when he wrote for the New York Daily Tribune, saying that the Economist was finally: ‘honest enough to confess at last that with it and its followers sympathy (for American emancipation) is a mere question of tariff’
Their chief editor at the time, the Confederacy apologist Bagehot, still has a “cutesy” little column named after him to this day.
Showing that they’ve learnt nothing in the centuries since, in a 2014 book review on a book about the trans-Atlantic slave trade, they unironically complained without a shred of self-awareness that:
For more further reading, the Citations Needed podcast had an episode on “The Refined Sociopathy of The Economist.” https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-98-the-refined-sociopathy-of-the-economist-4966767e1688