The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has sidelined Taiwan from participating in the United Nations and the related NGOs since UN resolution 2758 was adopted in 1971. China claims the legitimacy of its actions based on the resolution and its distortion of the actual meaning of the UN resolution. In recent years, parliaments in the free world took a tougher stance in calling out Beijing’s distortions in the Resolution’s actual wording. This included The Canadian House of Commons, where the Liberals hold a majority, passing a motion on November 2024 stating that UN Resolution 2758 does not establish the People’s Republic China’s (PRC) sovereignty over Taiwan and that UN2758 has not determined Taiwan’s future participation in the UN or other international organisations. [1]
In my opinion, it is beyond doubt that the PRC mischaracterised the meaning of UN resolution 2758. Through these distortions, Beijing holds the view to legitimise its expansionism into Taiwan.
The resolution reads as:
‘Recognising that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council…’
If we read the text of the resolution carefully, neither “Taiwan” was named or the role of Taiwan, nor did it specify the status of the Republic of China. Although the line goes ‘and to expel the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organisations related to it’, it did not say to ban all Taiwan participation in the United Nations, such as the right to observe the meetings or hold any position as the representative of a Taiwanese government.
Indeed, during the conversation between then PRC Premier Zhou Enlai and Kissinger, which took place in 1971, where they discussed the UN resolution; Zhou acknowledged that the status of Taiwan would be unresolved by the Resolution. Zhou argued:
“The question is that in the other resolution it calls for the restoration of all lawful rights of China in the United Nations, including its seat in the UN. In that resolution it is not possible to put in a clause concerning the status of Taiwan, and if it is passed, the status of Taiwan is not yet decided.”[2]
Beijing did not press further eventually as the PRC and US representatives wanted to resolve the Indochina (mostly Vietnam) situation more urgently than Beijing’s view on the status of Taiwan. Therefore, neither the US nor the PRC hold any further discussion on it. Let alone the notion that the US holds China’s narrative of its ‘One China’ policy.
The only UN document which began referencing Taiwan came from a memorandum issued by the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) in 2010. It reads:
“Since the adoption of that resolution the United Nations considers ‘Taiwan’ as a province of China with no separate status, and the Secretariat strictly abides by this decision in the exercise of its responsibilities. Thus, since the adoption of this resolution the established practice of the United Nations has been to use the term ‘Taiwan, Province of China’ when a reference to ‘Taiwan’ is required in United Nations Secretariat documents.”[3]
This holds the view of the Secretariat at that time. It is not the view of individual nations or a debate in the chambers of the Institution. This memorandum is then used as the legal basis PRC relied on to exclude ROC from UN organisations other than Resolution 2758.
There exists no grounds to exclude Taiwan from participating in the United Nations or related NGOs. The memorandum was only issued under the pressure from PRC, and the decision is neither unanimous, nor voted through the General Assembly for what resolution 2758 had went through. Meanwhile, countries such as Nauru voiced its opposition on the memorandum.[4]
It draws to attention the danger of being silent on the issue of Taiwan on the world stage and allowing the PRC to exert its views without limits without the concerns of the limitation in international law.
Since the 1970s, the liberalisation and identity in Taiwan has grown substantively. Much of this has to do with its ability to forge and solidify its identity through stability gained through embracing liberal democracy
Taiwan nowadays is thought of as a de facto independent state. The speech of President Lai summarised this sentiment in Taiwan: “Republic of China and People Republic of China were not subordinated to each other.”[5]
The Taiwanese political system is vastly different and independent from the People’s Republic of China. Indeed, Taiwan was never part of the PRC.
The Liberal Democrats Friends of Hong Kong had been campaigning against PRC’s misuse of UN resolution 2758. Gone unchecked, Beijing’s exertion of its views is similar to Putin’s exertion of its territorial claims and conflict will become less resolved.
Come to our fringe at Harrogate to learn more. ‘Lessons from UN Resolution 2758 – How Liberals must Protect World Institutes’, will be discussed among experts including Phil Bennion (LD former MEP & Liberal International), Neal Robbins (Taiwan Undaunted), and Gray Sergeant (Indo Pacific Geopolitics). There will also be a very special message from Raymond Sung – Taiwan’s Prospect Foundation. All these: Saturday, 22nd March at 19:40 (click for more info).
[1] Fion Khan, ‘Canada House passes motion on UN Resolution 2758’, 7th Nov 2024, Taipei Times.
[2] National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 1035, Files for the President-China Material, HAK visit to PRC, October 1971, Memcons-originals.
[3] United Nations Juridical Yearbook 2010.
[4] Jacques deLisle and Bonnie S. Glaser, ‘Why UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 Does Not Establish Beijing’s “One China” Principle: A Legal Perspective’, April 2024, German Marshall Fund.
[5] Speech from President Lai, 13th March 2025. Office of The President, Republic of China, Taiwan, ‘President Lai holds press conference following high-level national security meeting’
* Larry Ngan is Data Officer for Brent Liberal Democrats, a member of Friends of Hong Kong and a campaigner on Hong Kong affairs.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Mike Peters
Simon R
Steve Trevethan
Peter Martin
nigel hunter
4 Comments
The government based in Taiwan used to be viewed as the government of the whole of China, even though the only part of China it controlled was Taiwan itself. Then the UN voted to recognise the communist government based on the mainland as the government of all China – with Taiwan the only part of China it didn’t control.
The government of China continues to seek to reunite China, regarding Taiwan as a rebel province that needs to be brought under control
Relevant article here about 2027 as a crucial date…
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/will-2027-invite-conflict-for-taiwan-and-china/
Presumably Taiwan has voted to be a separate nation. If so then China would be invading another country. Perhaps the UN needs another resolution and vote.
@ Peter Hirst,
“Presumably Taiwan has voted to be a separate nation. If so then China would be invading another country.”
That’s perhaps the way it could work but it doesn’t under International law. Once a region is accepted to be a part of another country, as Taiwan has always been accepted to be a part of China, its status can’t be altered legally by a local popular vote.
The same argument is used to say Crimea is a part of Ukraine and its status can’t be altered by a popular vote there.
Naturally, sometimes the law suits the particular interest of another country and sometimes it doesn’t. There is often a lack of consistency. The law, which was ignored, didn’t suit the West when Kosovo declared independence from Serbia for instance.