Again, you don't seem to understand. The UN does what it's most powerful constituents want it to do.
US successfully moved the goalpost from simple majority (50%) to super majority (66%) within the rules of UN Charter by using tricky parliamentary gimmick to thwart the majority, but US did not have veto over the entire democratic will of UNGA. It cannot override UNGA or else what is the difference between UN and League of Nations without rules and preocedures to follow?
The UN isn't some kind of democratic body for countries.
Notice the weasel word "some kind of"?
Yes, strong aspects of democracy is what differeniates the failed League of Nations from the United Nations so it's wildly convenient you use some weasel word to distract from a legitimate mechanism to counterbalance superpower abuse.
It's a treaty between the most powerful countries in the world to not kill each other because it would end humanity as we know it.
Fair enough.
Hard disagree. US could achieve their objectives with PRC and ROC entering as "Two China" proposal, not necessarily required PRC replacing ROC. It's not a necessary byproduct of "diplomacy" to eject ROC entirely from UN. But guess what, that US attempt to keep ROC inside UN under "Two China " was defeated, so don't tell me US wanted diplomacy by replacing PRC with ROC. It was reluctantly forced to accept it as a fait accompli.
You think 1668 and 2758 just happened out of the good will of the international body?
Yes, literally every single year since 1950, a vote for PRC admission would occur in UNGA requiring a simple majority (50%) and the gap would grow narrower and narrower. from six in favor and 33 opposed in 1950 to 34 in favor and 42 opposed (with 22 more abstaining) in 1960 according to this
. Without this gradually narrowing of the gap due to international goodwill, US would not have been pressured into moving goalposts to a supermajority (66%). US saw the momentum shifting towards PRC admission each year, and reacted by manipulating the rules to thwart a majority and raising to 66% threshold as well as introduced a failed attempt at a "Two China" solution.
It took years of effort and maneuvering from the PRC. You think it was a coincidence that Nixon visited China shortly after?
Circumstantial evidence at best. It does not prove that the only natural avenue for diplomacy was replacement of ROC by PRC. US tried to push aggressively for a "Two China" solution but got defeated at UNGA.
The recognition of the PRC in the UN was a pre-requisite for normalization of relations with the US.
Hard disagree. US tried to push aggressively for a "Two China" solution but got defeated at UNGA. Don't pretend that US graciously gifted ROC seat to PRC as a pre-requisite for normalization, when it was handed a defeat as a fait accompli by UNGA, despite tripping over it's own dick to fight it till the last minute.
It was all part of the Cold War.
Too simple, too naive. Sino-American reapproachment is only partial explanatory variable, but the shifting of democratic opinion of UNGA played a big role in US eventually accepting PRC admission as a fait accompli. Soviet Union even voted in favor of PRC admission (with US voting no) so why are you exaggerating the Sino-American alliance and Sino-Soviet Split with your Cold war allusion. What US didn't expect was it's last ditch 'Two China' proposal to be defeated. It had no other choice but to accept the ejection of ROC. It didn't do so because it wanted to, it fought aggressively against it till the very minute, but thankfully the UNGA willpower prevailed over US dirty tactics.
I suggest reading this excellent article for full story.
