◎ Wang Pinhan
Break away from the historical framework and face contemporary political reality
Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China Policy (IPAC), pointed out in a recent interview that it is important for the international community to counter Beijing’s expansionary interpretation of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, but this is only the first step. Governments of various countries cannot stay stuck in the framework of "who represents China" in the 1970s forever, but should further face today's political reality.
This issue deserves Taiwan's rethinking: If the controversy over Resolution 2758 is moving from "how to interpret" to "how to implement", then what Taiwan really needs to strive for is not just the international community's help in clarifying a resolution half a century ago, but for countries' Taiwan policies to gradually respond to the actual existence of Taiwan today.
Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China Policy (IPAC), pointed out that governments cannot stay forever in the framework of "who represents China" in the 1970s, but should further face today's political reality. Return to the original intention of the resolution and bring back the 1971 UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 in Contemporary International Politics, which dealt with the issue of the government of the People's Republic of China representing China in the United Nations. The text of the resolution itself does not mention Taiwan, nor does it address Taiwan's political status. Since IPAC proposed the "2758 Initiative" in 2024, it has taken this as its core and advocated countering Beijing's practice of linking 2758 with the "One-China Principle." Since then, Australia, the Netherlands, the European Parliament, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Czech Republic have successively taken relevant actions to require a more accurate understanding of the scope of 2758.
The importance of these actions is not only to "clarify" Taiwan, but also to gradually bring the issue back from historical documents to contemporary international politics. In an exclusive interview with the Central News Agency in August this year, Pei Lunde also observed that Beijing has less often used 2758 as its main discussion tool and has turned to the 2016 South China Sea arbitration case. This at least shows that the international discourse space of 2758 has changed, but it does not mean that Taiwan’s international participation dilemma has disappeared.
Break through defense clarification and construct a new Taiwan policy
Therefore, the really important question after 2758 is: How should the international community face Taiwan today?
The content of United Nations Resolution 2758 recognizes that the government of the People's Republic of China is China's only legal representative in the United Nations. After decades of democratic development, Taiwan has formed a political entity with complete democratic governance, electoral system, judicial system and independent economic operation capabilities, and occupies an important position in semiconductors, information communications and global supply chains. These are realities that the international community cannot ignore when facing Taiwan today.
This also means that Taiwan's diplomatic strategy cannot remain at "defensive clarification" forever. When Beijing tried to restrict Taiwan's participation in international organizations through Section 2758, Taiwan certainly needed to continue to explain the original text and scope of application of the resolution; but further work was to discuss with countries with similar ideas how to update Taiwan policies so that mechanisms such as official exchanges, economic and trade cooperation, science and technology security, participation in international organizations, and crisis response would gradually respond to Taiwan's actual role today.
Distinguish representative disputes and implement substantive policy cooperation
This does not require all countries to immediately change their existing diplomatic positions, but requires them to distinguish between two different issues: "Who does it recognize as representing China?" and "How to interact with Taiwan, a democratic governance entity." In fact, IPAC's own initiative has also been extended from the literal interpretation of 2758 to Taiwan's participation in international organizations and the policy coordination of democratic countries on Taiwan Strait security.
Taiwan itself must also provide the international community with a more adequate basis for cooperation. National defense resilience, protection of critical infrastructure, supply chain security, and the continued functioning of democratic systems are all important conditions for international partners to evaluate whether Taiwan can become a reliable partner for cooperation. Diplomacy is not about asking for support from others, but about giving international cooperation a more stable foundation through its own capabilities and institutional performance.
In other words, what Taiwan really deserves to grasp in the 2758 dispute is not just to "rectify the name" of historical documents, but to use it to re-examine its international positioning. As more and more Congresses begin to question Beijing's expansionary interpretation of 2758, the next step should not be to say another Congressional statement, but to allow these political signals to gradually be transformed into more concrete policy cooperation.
International community, don’t just ask who represents China
Half a century ago, 2758 answered "Who represents China?"; half a century later, the international community is already facing a completely different world.
What Taiwan really needs to promote may be for countries to start answering another question: What role does Taiwan play in today's international order, and how should it be treated by the world?
