I recently watched a panel discussion on Taiwan Talks in which the host rightly asked a critical question: Why is the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) spearheading a robust global movement to reject China’s ongoing distortion of UN Resolution 2758?
While the discussion offered some context, a more penetrating analysis and urgent development was missed. The IPAC action is not merely a political gesture; it is an essential legal and diplomatic countermeasure to China’s escalating and fundamentally baseless campaign to manufacture a claim over Taiwan through the deliberate misinterpretation of a 1971 UN resolution.
Since the inauguration of Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) as president in 2016, Taiwan has intensified its efforts for meaningful inclusion in global governance. The last time Taiwan attended the World Health Assembly (WHA) was in 2016 — an invitation narrowly secured just before Tsai took office on May 20 that year.
Since 2017, the strategic focus has been on participation in non-political, needs-based forums where “Taiwan can help”: primarily the WHO, but also the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for air safety and Interpol for transnational crime.
Democratic nations and Taiwan’s diplomatic allies have offered staunch, unified support, recognizing Taiwan’s crucial democratic experience and contributions. This advocacy has often been spearheaded by national parliamentarians, whose work — driven by the tireless diplomacy of Taiwan’s government and the global diaspora — has effectively compelled their respective executives to press for Taiwan’s inclusion within these international bodies.
However, because the WHO is a UN specialized agency, Taiwan’s attempts to regain observer status are consistently met with institutional obstruction. UN administrative units, acting on Beijing’s direction, routinely invoke UN Resolution 2758. This obstruction is comprehensive, even extending to barring journalists holding Taiwanese passports from entering the UN headquarters.
Every year, key democracies and diplomatic allies champion Taiwan at the May WHA and the September UN General Assembly, arguing that no population — especially one with Taiwan’s experience combating infectious diseases like SARS and COVID-19 — should be excluded. While full inclusion remains elusive, the international momentum for support continues to build inexorably.
The urgency driving the IPAC response stems directly from three highly consequential and recent actions where China has explicitly conflated the “one China” principle with UN Resolution 2758 to directly erode Taiwan’s international standing.
First, expulsion from the Central American Parliament: On Aug. 21, 2023, Beijing orchestrated Nicaragua’s successful proposal to expel Taiwan (which had been a permanent observer since 1999) from the parliament and replace it with China. For the first time since 1971, this regional body explicitly cited UN Resolution 2758 and the “one China” principle to justify the expulsion — a calculated, dangerous precedent.
Second, Nauru’s diplomatic switch: Following the election of President William Lai (賴清德), China immediately poached Nauru on Jan. 15 last year. Crucially, the communique announcing the switch was the first of its kind to specifically cite UN Resolution 2758 alongside the “one China” principle.
Third, the downgrade of the office in South Africa: In March, the South African government unilaterally sought to downgrade Taiwan’s representation by changing the name of the Taipei Liaison Office to the Taipei Commercial Office and reclassifying it as an “international organization stationed in South Africa,” rather than as a separate entity. This action was accompanied by renewed demands that Taiwan vacate the administrative capital, Pretoria, citing UN Resolution 2758 and the “one China” principle.
These events confirm that Beijing is aggressively attempting to manufacture a false legal equivalence between the “one China” principle and UN Resolution 2758. This conflation is utterly without merit: UN Resolution 2758 solely addressed the question of Chinese representation in the UN; it is silent on Taiwan’s sovereignty and provides no endorsement of the “one China” principle.
IPAC’s initiative constitutes the most strategically important counterdevelopment in this context. On July 30 last year, the IPAC Annual Meeting in Taipei passed a resolution rejecting China’s distortion of UN Resolution 2758. This document is now the global legislative template.
Legislatures and inter-parliamentary bodies in the US, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Belgium, the UK, Australia, the EU, Canada and Sweden have subsequently passed resolutions aligning with the IPAC template, collectively refusing to accept Beijing’s manipulative interpretation.
However, a striking anomaly exists: While nine legislatures around the world have passed resolutions aligned with IPAC, the Legislative Yuan has yet to do so — an initial attempt by Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers in September last year was stalled due to the failure of the opposition to engage constructively. This urgency to address a global challenge that Taiwan’s own parliament has not yet fully embraced is precisely why I felt compelled to write.
The core issue is a focused defense of the international legal order. The most urgent priority is clear: Taiwan’s opposition majority bloc must end its obstruction and pass the IPAC-aligned resolution immediately. Globally, every democracy must join this legislative template to definitively reject China’s egregious distortion of UN Resolution 2758. The 1971 vote was unequivocally neither a vote for the “one China” principle, nor a mandate to determine Taiwan’s future. This distinction is fundamentally and strategically imperative.
Tseng Yueh-ying manages the Facebook page Translation Matters, which serves as a forum for discussions on language and Taiwanese politics.
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her