With the 79th session of the UN General Assembly set to hold its General Debate from Tuesday next week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Taiwan this year would focus on challenging and refuting China’s misinterpretation and misuse of UN Resolution 2758, highlighting its fight against China’s hegemonic diplomacy and lawfare to exclude Taiwan from international society.
UN Resolution 2758 states that the General Assembly recognizes “that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are the only lawful representatives of China to the UN” and “expel[s] forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and all the organizations related to it.” The resolution does not mention Taiwan at all. Nevertheless, it has been misused by Beijing as a tool to push its “one China principle” and to block Taiwan’s international engagement.
Nauru’s decision in January to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan on the grounds of UN Resolution 2758 and the “one China principle” demonstrated the risk that if the misunderstanding is not clarified soon, the cross-strait status quo that “neither Taiwan nor the PRC is subordinate to the other” would be subverted by China.
A growing number of democracies and like-minded states have begun questioning China’s false claims about Taiwan and UN Resolution 2758. Following the US House of Representatives’ passage of the Taiwan International Solidarity Act to counter China’s distortion of the resolution, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for China and Taiwan Mark Lambert in April openly expressed strong opposition to Beijing’s misrepresentation, and underlined that the resolution neither endorsed an international consensus on the “one China policy” nor “constitute a UN institutional position on the political status of Taiwan.” The German Marshall Foundation in Washington also released a research paper saying that China’s assertion that the resolution is the basis for its “one China principle” is a flawed legal assumption and argument.
The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) during its annual summit in July passed a model resolution on 2758 saying that it does not endorse the “one China principle” and that the lack of representation for millions of Taiwanese in the UN should be remedied. IPAC delegates vowed to pass similar resolutions in their respective countries. The summit was attended by 49 members from 24 countries.
Meanwhile, Australia was the first country whose senate unanimously passed a motion regarding the misinterpretation of UN Resolution 2758. The Dutch House of Representatives also passed a motion rejecting Beijing’s distortion of the UN resolution and requested that the Dutch government seek support for this position within the EU.
Since this year’s UN General Assembly’s theme is “Leaving no one behind: acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development and human dignity,” the government and civil groups in Taiwan have pledged to increase efforts in appealing to the UN and the international community to stop China from misrepresenting the resolution, as the UN has ironically left behind Taiwan’s 23.5 million people.
Regretfully, when Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers on Wednesday proposed passing a motion clarifying Taiwan’s stance on UN Resolution 2758, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party demurred and walked out of the meeting. This move should be considered as an acquiescence to China’s bullying and distortion of Taiwan’s sovereignty and international representation.
Taiwanese authorities should work with like-minded partners to explicate how to correctly interpret UN Resolution 2758 to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty. The public should also beware of Chinese toadies who are hindering Taiwan’s solidarity and facilitating the authoritarian regime’s efforts to isolate Taiwan.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS