Why UN Resolution 2758 is important for Taiwan’s future

Resolution 2758, adopted at the 26th session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 25 October 1971, recognised the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China to the UN and decided to “expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and in all the organizations related to it”.

In the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Resolution 2758 is the legal basis of its “one China” principle and its insistence that Taiwan is Chinese territory. China’s white papers on the Taiwan issue, issued in 1993, 2000 and 2022, all mentioned Resolution 2758. 

The first two white papers only stated that the resolution “expelled the representatives of the Taiwan authorities”. In contrast, the 10 August 2022 white paper — The Taiwan Issue and China’s Unification Cause in the New Era — maintained that the resolution completely solved the problem of China’s representation in political, legal and procedural terms, and that “Taiwan” is indisputably a province of China.

However, the wording of Resolution 2758 is somewhat vague. It contains no mention of the “Republic of China” or “Taiwan”, only the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek”. This has been the cause of disputes within the international community over whether Taiwan or the Republic of China as it is today should have the right to participate at the UN.

The Taiwan International Solidarity Act, passed by the US House of Representatives in July 2023, states that Resolution 2758 does not affect Taiwan’s participation in UN affairs, and the US hoped to use this act to counter the CCP’s own interpretation of Taiwan’s international status.

This move by the House of Representatives was welcomed by the Taiwan government. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of the Republic of China pointed out that for decades, China had “deliberately inflated and misrepresented” Resolution 2758 and used it to block Taiwan’s participation in various international forums, even claiming that it provides the international legal basis for the so-called “one China” principle, “using it to falsely claim sovereignty over Taiwan on numerous occasions.

However, according to some in Taiwan, the Taiwan International Solidarity Act is no more than a unilateral interpretation of Resolution 2758 by the US and has no force in international law. Unless the US proposes to restore Taiwan’s status in the UN and has the support of two-thirds of the member states, there will be little substantive change in Taiwan’s international status.

In other words, the act is no more than a political gesture on behalf of the House of Representatives, an expression of opposition to Beijing’s foreign policy. Since this act has yet to be passed by the Senate, it is unlikely to have any real impact on the UN.

Resolution 2758 has also attracted the attention of political groups on all sides in Taiwan. Participants at a recent meeting in Taipei of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), composed of parliamentarians from many countries, emphasised that Resolution 2758 did not exclude Taiwan from participating in international organisations.

In her address to the meeting, Vice-President Hsiao Bi-khim of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) expressed her gratitude to the IPAC members and others for their support for Taiwan’s participation in the international arena and their opposition to Beijing’s interpretation of Resolution 2758.

The opposition “pan-Blue” parties — including the Kuomintang (KMT, Chinese Nationalist Party) — advocate rejoining the UN under the title “Republic of China”. In September 2024, the KMT caucus in the Legislative Yuan pointed out that since the Republic of China was one of the five founding members of the UN, Resolution 2758 had no legitimacy, and that Taiwan’s government should pursue membership of the UN under the title “Republic of China” rather than Taiwan. 

According to the pan-Blue parties, that course of action would be a more appropriate way to participate in the international community. So although the Blue and pro-independence Green sides agree that Resolution 2758 was illegitimate and treated the Taiwanese people unfairly, they differ in their views as to whether the title “Taiwan” should be used in its effort to return to the UN. Their main consideration in this is to win over voters who support either unification (the Blue parties) or independence (the Greens).

As China becomes more powerful and ambitious, Resolution 2758 has a protective effect on Taiwan to a certain extent. Western countries and international organisations may be supporting Taipei’s participation in international affairs by interpreting the text of the resolution in vague terms.

Of course, one of the West’s core interests is the maintenance of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Unless China upsets that status quo by invading Taiwan, the US and its Western allies will not actively promote Taiwan’s membership in the UN.

For the Taiwanese government and people, the main purpose of clarifying the content of Resolution 2758 is to deter China from invading Taiwan and to ensure that Taiwan retains de facto independence. 

The East Asian order established by Resolution 2758 has kept the peace between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait for more than 50 years. If there are no major international events or wars involving China, the Resolution 2758 system will continue to play an important role in maintaining the status quo in Taiwan and, despite strong pressure from China, allowing the government of the Republic of China some space to participate in the international community.

Related: UN Resolution 2758 debate: A growing global effort to challenge China’s claims on Taiwan? | Will Taiwan face further diplomatic isolation amid Beijing’s use of UN Resolution 2758?