View source for United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI)

{{short description|1971 UN resolution recognizing the PRC as the representative of China}}
 
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2022}}
{{Infobox UN resolution
|number = 2758
|organ = GA
|date = 25 October
|year = 1971
|meeting = 1,976
|code = A/RES/2758(XXVI)
|document = https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/327/74/PDF/NR032774.pdf?OpenElement
|for = 76
|abstention = 17
|against = 35
|subject = Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations
|result = Adopted
|image = Voting res 2758.svg
|caption = Voting by country in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758
{{legend|#74C365|Voted in favor}}
{{legend|#AB4E52|Voted against}}
{{legend|#FADA5E|Abstained}}
{{legend|#89CFF0|Non-voting member}}
{{legend|#C0C0C0|Non-UN-members/dependencies}}
}}
{{Infobox Chinese
| title             = United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758
| pic               = 
| piccap            = 
| picsize           = 275px
| t                 = {{nowrap|聯合國大會第2758號決議}}
| s                 = {{nowrap|联合国大会第2758号决议}}
| p                 = Liánhéguó Dàhuì 2758 hào juéyì
| tp                = Lianheguo Dahuei 2758 hao jyueyi
| w                 = Lien<sup>2</sup>-ho<sup>2</sup>-kuo<sup>2</sup> Ta<sup>4</sup>-hui<sup>4</sup> 2758 hao<sup>4</sup> chueh<sup>2</sup>-yi<sup>4</sup>
| myr               = Lyanhegwo Dahwei 2758 hau Jyweyi
}}
{{Wikisource}}
The '''United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758''', titled ''Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations'',<ref name=":1"/> was passed in response to the [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668]] that required any change in China's representation in the UN be determined by a two-thirds vote referring to Article 18<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml |title=Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IV: The General Assembly |access-date=23 December 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101128023816/http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml |archive-date=28 November 2010 }}</ref> of the [[UN Charter]]. The resolution, passed on 25 October 1971, recognized the [[China|People's Republic of China]] (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and removed "the representatives of [[Chiang Kai-shek]]" (referring to the then [[Kuomintang]] regime as the [[Dominant-party system|dominant party]] in the [[Taiwan|Republic of China]], whose central government had [[Retreat of the government of Republic of China to Taiwan|retreated to Taiwan from the mainland]]) from the United Nations.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=UN General Assembly |author-link=United Nations General Assembly |date=1971 |title=Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/192054 |url-status=live |journal=Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly During Its 26th Session, 21 September-22 December 1971 |language=en |page=2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221227072343/https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/192054 |archive-date=27 December 2022 |access-date=23 March 2023}}</ref>

In the 2020s, disputes over the interpretation of the resolution have arisen, with [[Taiwan]], the [[United States]], [[Canada]], the [[European Union]], [[United Kingdom]] and [[Australia]] disagreeing with the PRC's interpretation about conflating the resolution with its [[one China principle]] and using it against Taiwan's right of participation in [[international organization]]s.

==Background==
The [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]] (ROC) was founded in 1912 in [[mainland China]], and [[Retrocession of Taiwan|expanded its jurisdiction to Taiwan]] in 1945.<ref name=":9" /> In 1945, it became one of the 51 original member states of the [[United Nations]], which was created in 1945. At that time, however, it was embroiled in [[Chinese Civil War|civil war]]: the ruling [[Chinese Nationalist Party]], or Kuomintang, was fighting troops led by the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP). This lasted until 1949, when [[Mao Zedong]] [[Proclamation of the People's Republic of China|proclaimed]] the [[China|People's Republic of China]] (PRC) in [[Beijing]] and the Nationalists [[Retreat of the government of Republic of China to Taiwan|retreated]] to [[Taiwan]], from which the [[Empire of Japan]] had withdrawn in 1945 and to which it would in 1951 [[Treaty of San Francisco|renounce]] all right, title and claim.<ref name=":9">{{Citation |last=Yang |first=Sheng-tsung |title=The Republic of China's Right to Participate in the United Nations |date=1996-01-01 |work=The International Status of Taiwan in the New World Order: Legal and Political Considerations |pages=117–132 |url=https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004639782/B9789004639782_s012.xml |access-date=2024-11-30 |publisher=Brill Nijhoff |language=en |isbn=978-90-04-63978-2 |archive-date=6 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241206074027/https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004639782/B9789004639782_s012.xml |url-status=live }}</ref> By January 1950 the PRC was in control of mainland China but was unable to capture Taiwan, [[Penghu]], [[Matsu Islands|Matsu]] or [[Kinmen]], and thus these remained Kuomintang-ruled.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2020-01-19 |title=Taiwan in Time: Fixing the KMT, 1950 edition |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2020/01/19/2003729490 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240913144200/https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2020/01/19/2003729490 |archive-date=13 September 2024 |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Hale |first=Erin |title=Taiwan taps on United Nations' door, 50 years after departure |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/25/chinas-un-seat-50-years-on |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=[[Al Jazeera]] |language=en |archive-date=29 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230129190345/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/25/chinas-un-seat-50-years-on |url-status=live }}</ref>

Although the ROC government continuously claimed that it would one day return to its mainland, by the 1970s, an increasing number of UN members became aware that this government no longer represented the hundreds of million people who lived on the mainland.<ref name=":8" /> The PRC claimed to be the successor government of the ROC, while the Kuomintang in Taiwan championed the continued existence of the Republic of China. Both claimed to be the [[Exclusive mandate#Mainland China and Taiwan|only legitimate Chinese government]], and each refused to maintain diplomatic relations with countries that have recognized the other. The ROC continued to represent China in the UN until Resolution 2758 was passed.<ref name=":9"/>

==Proceedings at the United Nations==
On 15 July 1971, 17 UN members: [[People's Socialist Republic of Albania|Albania]], [[Algeria]], [[People's Republic of the Congo|the Congo]], [[Cuba]], [[Guinea]], [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]], [[Mali]], [[Mauritania]], [[Yemen Arab Republic|North Yemen]], [[Socialist Republic of Romania|Romania]], [[Somali Democratic Republic|Somalia]], [[South Yemen]], [[Democratic Republic of the Sudan|Sudan]], [[Ba'athist Syria|Syria]], [[Tanzania]], [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], and [[Zambia]], requested that a question of the "Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations" be placed on the provisional agenda of the twenty-sixth session of the [[United Nations General Assembly]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=United Nations |author-link=United Nations |url=https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210601986 |title=Yearbook of the United Nations 1971 |date=1971-12-31 |publisher=United Nations |isbn=978-92-1-060198-6 |pages=126–128, 136 |language=en |access-date=31 December 2023 |archive-date=26 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231126024505/https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789210601986 |url-status=live }}</ref> In an explanatory memorandum accompanying their request, the 17 UN members observed that for years they had protested against what they considered were hostile and discriminatory policy followed by several governments with regard to the communist government of mainland China, which they considered to be the genuine representative of the Chinese people.<ref name=":0" /> The existence of the People's Republic of China, they declared, was a reality which could "not be changed to suit the myth of a so called ''Republic of China'', fabricated out of a portion of Chinese territory".<ref name=":0" /> In the view of the 17 UN members, the ROC were unlawful authorities installed in the island of Taiwan which claimed to represent China, and they remained there only because of the [[United States Taiwan Defense Command|permanent presence of United States Armed Forces]].<ref name=":0" /> No important international problems, they added, could be solved without the participation of the People's Republic of China. It was in the fundamental interests, they concluded, of the United Nations to "restore" promptly to the People's Republic of China its seat in the organization, thus putting an end to a "grave injustice" and "dangerous situation" which had been perpetuated in order to fulfill a policy that had been increasingly repudiated.<ref name=":0" /> This meant the immediate expulsion of the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek regime from the seat which it held in the United Nations.<ref name=":0" />

On 17 August 1971, the United States requested that a second item, "The representation of China in the United Nations" also be placed on the provisional agenda.<ref name=":0" /> In the explanatory memorandum accompanying the U.S. request, the U.S. said that in dealing with the problem of the representation of China, the United Nations should take cognizance of the existence of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China; it should reflect that incontestable reality in the manner in which it made provision for China's representation.<ref name=":0" /> The U.S. asserted that the UN should not be required to take a definitive position on the respective conflicting claims of the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China, pending a peaceful resolution of the matter as called for by the [[United Nations Charter]].<ref name=":0" /> Thus, the U.S. added, the People's Republic of China should be represented and at the same time provision should be made to ensure that the Republic of China was not deprived of its representation.<ref name=":0" />

On 22 September 1971, the United States proposed at the UN General Committee that the two items be combined into one item called "The Question of China".<ref name=":0" /> The proposal was, however, rejected by 12 votes to 9 with 3 abstentions.<ref name=":0" />

On 25 September 1971, the first Albanian-backed draft resolution, ''A/L.630 and Add.1 and 2'', was submitted by 23 states including 17 of the states which had joined in placing the question on the agenda, to: "...restore to the People's Republic of China all its rights and expel forthwith the representatives of [[Chiang Kai-shek]]."<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1971-09-25 |title=Restoration of the lawful rights of People's Republic of China in the United Nations: draft resolution / Albania, Algeria, Ceylon, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Republic of the Congo, Romania, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3979538 |url-status=live |journal=United Nations |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223161228/https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3979538 |archive-date=23 December 2023 |access-date=10 March 2024}}</ref>

On 29 September 1971, a second draft resolution, ''A/L.632 and Add.1 and 2'', sponsored by 22 members including the U.S., was proposed declaring that any proposal to deprive the Republic of China of representation was an important question under [[s:Charter of the United Nations#Article 18|Article 18]] of the UN Charter, and thus would require a two-thirds [[supermajority]] for approval.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1971-09-29 |title=Restoration of the lawful rights of People's Republic of China in the United Nations: draft resolution /: Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Philippines. Swaziland, Thailand, United States of America and Uruguay |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3979592 |url-status=live |journal=United Nations |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223141629/https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3979592 |archive-date=23 December 2023 |access-date=10 March 2024}}</ref>

On 29 September 1971, a third draft resolution, ''A/L.633'', sponsored by 19 members including the U.S., was proposed by which the Assembly would affirm the right of representation of the People's Republic of China and recommend that it be seated as one of the five permanent members of the [[United Nations Security Council|Security Council]], while also affirming the continuing right of representation of the Republic of China.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=1971-09-29 |title=Restoration of the lawful rights of People's Republic of China in the United Nations: draft resolution /: Australia, Chad, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Gambia, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, New Zealand, Philippines, Swaziland, Thailand, United States of America and Uruguay |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3979640 |url-status=live |journal=United Nations |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231223155843/https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3979640 |archive-date=23 December 2023 |access-date=2 May 2023}}</ref>

[[File:Resolution-2758.png|thumb|Adopted resolution 2758]]

On 15 October 1971 the representatives of 22 UN members requested the [[UN Secretary-General]] to distribute, as an official Assembly document, a statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China dated 20 August 1971.<ref name=":0" /> In this statement, made in response to the U.S. letter of 17 August 1971 and its accompanying explanatory memorandum, the People's Republic of China declared that the U.S. proposal was a blatant exposure of the [[Presidency of Richard Nixon#China and the Soviet Union|Nixon government]]'s scheme of creating "[[two Chinas]]" in the United Nations. It added that there was only [[one China]], the People's Republic of China.<ref name=":0" />  Taiwan, it continued, was an [[Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China|inalienable part of Chinese territory]] and a province of China which had already been returned to the motherland after the Second World War.<ref name=":0" /> It went on to state that the U.S. was plotting to separate Taiwan from China and was wildly attempting to force members of the UN to submit to its will.<ref name=":0" /> The Chinese government declared that the Chinese people and government firmly opposed "two Chinas", "one China, one Taiwan", or any other similar arrangement, as well as the claim that "the [[status of Taiwan]] remains to be determined".<ref name=":0" /> They declared they would have absolutely nothing to do with the UN in such scenarios.<ref name=":0" />

Discussion at the Assembly took place at 12 [[plenary meeting]]s between 18 and 26 October 1971 with 73 member states taking part.<ref name=":0" /> During the debates four more draft resolutions were submitted - three by [[Tunisia]] and one by [[Saudi Arabia]]. Broadly, each of these draft resolutions was a variation on the third draft resolution described above, backed by the U.S. Notably, the Saudi-proposed resolution would have held that the people of the island of Taiwan had a right to [[self-determination]].<ref name=":0" /> Similarly, the Tunisian resolution would have called for the Republic of China government to be represented in the United Nations under the name "[[wikt:Formosa|Formosa]]".<ref name=":0" />

[[Algeria]]'s representative in the debates submitted that to recognize that the government of the People's Republic of China was lawfully entitled to represent China did not imply the eviction of a member but the eviction of the representatives of a dissident minority regime.<ref name=":0" /> The U.S., in its submission, took the opposite view; arguing that adoption of the resolution expelling the representatives sent from Taipei would imply the termination of the membership of a longstanding member. The spokesman of the Republic of China submitted that his country had earned its place in the United Nations by virtue of its [[Second Sino-Japanese War|contribution to peace and freedom during the Second World War]].<ref name=":0" /> He said the Chinese communist regime, which had never had the moral [[Consent of the governed|consent of the Chinese people]], could in no way be regarded as the representative of the great Chinese nation.<ref name=":0" /> Various members including two permanent members of the security council, the [[United Kingdom]] and the [[USSR]], argued that requiring the matter to be subject to a supermajority vote was not appropriate because the adoption of the Albanian proposed resolution did not involve the admission or expulsion of a member. Rather it concerned only credentials and Taiwan had never been a member.<ref name=":0" /> They argued there was only one Chinese state that was a member.  Any other Chinese state would have to apply for membership in accordance with the Charter.<ref name=":0" />

On 25 October 1971, the voting took place. In the first vote held, the Assembly rejected the U.S. backed proposal that the matter would require a supermajority vote — the 'important question motion' ''[A/L.632 and Add.1 and 2]''.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/735611 |title=General Assembly, 26th session: 1976th plenary meeting, Monday, 25 October 1971, New York |year=1974 |pages=33–35, 40 |language=en |access-date=15 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200310142214/https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/735611 |archive-date=10 March 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> The Assembly then voted on a separate U.S. proposal that the words "and to expel forthwith the representatives of [[Chiang Kai-shek]] from the place which they unlawfully occupied at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it" be removed from the draft resolution ''A/L.630 and Add.1 and 2''. The U.S. representative suggested that this motion, if adopted, would "have the effect of welcoming the PRC to the General Assembly and the Security Council, while at the same time not affecting the representation of the ROC in this hall".<ref name=":3" /> The motion was rejected by a vote of 61 to 51, with 16 abstentions.<ref name=":3" />

{| class="wikitable"
|+Votes on the 'important question motion'
! scope="col" |Vote
! scope="col" |Tally
! scope="col" |States
|-
|{{yes|In favour}}
| style="text-align: right" |55
|Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Khmer Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela.
|-
|{{no|Against}}
| style="text-align: right" |59
|Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatodal Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Kuwait, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Republic of the Congo, Peru, Poland, Romania, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.
|-
|{{maybe|Abstain}}
| style="text-align: right" |15
|Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Cyprus, Italy, Iran, Laos, Malta, Morocco, Netherlands, Qatar, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey.
|-
| colspan="3" |'''Source:''' United Nations General Assembly Official Records<ref name=":3" />
|}

At this point the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the ROC, [[Minister of Foreign Affairs (Republic of China)|Chow Shu-Kai]], stated "in view of the frenzied and irrational manners that have been exhibited in this hall, the delegation of the Republic of China has now decided not to take part in any further proceedings of this General Assembly."<ref name=":3" /> He said the "ideals upon which the United Nations was founded and which the General Assembly has now been betrayed".<ref name=":3" />

The Assembly then adopted draft Albanian proposed resolution ''A/L.630 and Add.1 and 2'', by a roll-call vote of 76 to 35, with 17 abstentions, as Resolution 2758.<ref name=":1" /> The Beijing government began representing China at the UN from 15 November 1971 and its delegates were seated at the UN Security Council meeting held on 23 November 1971, the first such meeting where representatives of the Beijing government represented China.<ref name=":0" />
{| class="wikitable"
|+Votes on the Albanian proposed resolution ''A/L.630 and Add.1 and 2''
! scope="col" |Vote
! scope="col" |Tally
! scope="col" |States
|-
|{{yes|In favour}}
| style="text-align: right" |76
|[[Kingdom of Afghanistan|Afghanistan]], [[People's Republic of Albania|Albania]], Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, [[People's Republic of Bulgaria|Bulgaria]], [[Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma|Burma]], Burundi, [[Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic]], Cameroon, Canada, [[Dominion of Ceylon|Ceylon]], Chile, Cuba, [[Czechoslovak Socialist Republic|Czechoslovakia]], Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, [[Ethiopian Empire|Ethiopia]], Finland, France, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, [[Hungarian People's Republic|Hungary]], Iceland, India, [[Pahlavi Iran|Iran]], [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]], Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kuwait, [[Kingdom of Laos]], [[History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi|Libyan Arab Republic]], Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, [[Mongolian People's Republic|Mongolia]], Morocco, [[Kingdom of Nepal|Nepal]], Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, [[South Yemen|People's Democratic Republic of Yemen]], [[People's Republic of the Congo]], Peru, [[Polish People's Republic|Poland]], Portugal, [[Socialist Republic of Romania|Romania]], Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, [[Somali Democratic Republic|Somalia]], [[Democratic Republic of the Sudan|Sudan]], Sweden, [[Ba'athist Syria|Syrian Arab Republic]], Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, [[Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic]], [[Soviet Union|Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]], United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, [[Yemen Arab Republic|Yemen]], [[SFR Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], Zambia
|-
|{{no|Against}}
| style="text-align: right" |35
|Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, [[Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville)|Congo (Democratic Republic of)]], Costa Rica, [[Republic of Dahomey|Dahomey]], Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Japan, [[Khmer Republic]], Lesotho, Liberia, [[Malagasy Republic|Madagascar]], Malawi, [[State of Malta|Malta]], New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Paraguay, [[History of the Philippines (1965–1986)|Philippines]], Saudi Arabia, South Africa, [[Eswatini|Swaziland]], United States of America, [[Republic of Upper Volta|Upper Volta]], Uruguay, [[Republic of Venezuela|Venezuela]]
|-
|{{maybe|Abstain}}
| style="text-align: right" |17
| Argentina, [[State of Bahrain|Bahrain]], Barbados, Colombia, Cyprus, [[Dominion of Fiji|Fiji]], [[Kingdom of Greece|Greece]], Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Luxembourg, [[Dominion of Mauritius|Mauritius]], Panama, Qatar, [[Francoist Spain|Spain]], Thailand
|-
| colspan="3" |'''Source:''' United Nations General Assembly Official Records<ref name=":3" />{{notelist}}
|}

== Later development ==
On 21 September 2007, the [[United Nations General Assembly|UN General Assembly]] rejected Taiwan's membership bid to "join the UN under the name of Taiwan", citing Resolution 2758 as acknowledging that Taiwan is part of China.<ref>{{Cite web |title=GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS WORK PROGRAMME FOR SIXTY-SECOND SESSION, REJECTS BID TO INCLUDE AGENDA ITEM ON TAIWAN {{!}} UN Press |url=https://press.un.org/en/2007/ga10617.doc.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229220651/https://press.un.org/en/2007/ga10617.doc.htm |archive-date=29 December 2023 |access-date=2023-12-29 |website=press.un.org}}</ref> The UN General Assembly and its [[United Nations General Committee|General Committee]]'s recommendations on the "Taiwan question" reflected long-standing UN policy and is mirrored in other documents promulgated by the United Nations.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tribunal |first=UN Administrative |date=1996-11-21 |title=Administrative Tribunal judgement no. 778 :: case no. 841, Chu against the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board. |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/233658 |url-status=live |journal=[[United Nations]] |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231215152131/https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/233658 |archive-date=15 December 2023 |access-date=24 May 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Secretary-General's press conference |url=https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2007-09-18/secretary-generals-press-conference |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210801172420/https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2007-09-18/secretary-generals-press-conference |archive-date=1 August 2021 |access-date=2024-05-24 |website=[[United Nations]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Highlight 9 July 2008 {{!}} United Nations Secretary-General |url=https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/highlight/2008-07-09.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240524024209/https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/highlight/2008-07-09.html |archive-date=24 May 2024 |access-date=2024-05-24 |website=www.un.org}}</ref> For example, the UN's ''"Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties, Handbook"'' (2003) states:

<blockquote>...regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758 (XXVI) of the General Assembly of 25 October 1971 on the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary.<ref>{{Cite web |title=''"Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties, Handbook"'', United Nations, 2003 |url=https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/fc/english.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312032445/https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/FC/English.pdf |archive-date=12 March 2012 |access-date=7 December 2016}}</ref></blockquote>

==Interpretations==

=== China ===
{{Further|Chinese unification|Anti-Secession Law}}
The Chinese government claims that Resolution 2758 also represented a process to rule out the ambiguity of Taiwan's status in the debates at the UN General Assembly, where the admission of the People's Republic of China to the UN was not considered a question of new membership, but a question of credentials, or who represented China to the UN.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Yi |first=Xin |date=2024-03-19 |title=Taiwan's status undetermined? A fallacy |url=http://vienna.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/mtjj/202404/t20240417_11283453.htm |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=Permanent Mission of China to the UN and other International Organizations in Vienna |archive-date=1 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241201193929/http://vienna.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/mtjj/202404/t20240417_11283453.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> After 1949, Taiwan was regarded as the [[rump state]] of the [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]], which had lost control of most of its [[Mainland China|mainland territory]], rendering it unable to represent China internationally—a position solidified by Resolution 2758.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last=Nan |first=Hao |title=UN Resolution 2758 debate: A growing global effort to challenge China's claims on Taiwan? |url=https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/un-resolution-2758-debate-growing-global-effort-challenge-chinas-claims-taiwan |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=ThinkChina |publisher=[[Lianhe Zaobao]] |language=en}}</ref>

The Chinese government insists that the term "China" in Resolution 2758 also refers to Taiwan.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=Wei |first=Sim Tze |title=Will Taiwan face further diplomatic isolation amid Beijing's use of UN Resolution 2758? |url=https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/will-taiwan-face-further-diplomatic-isolation-amid-beijings-use-un-resolution-2758 |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=ThinkChina |publisher=[[Lianhe Zaobao]] |language=en}}</ref> Yang Tao, a senior Chinese diplomat, asserted that [[People's Republic of China]] had replaced the [[Republic of China (1912–1949)|Republic of China]] as the representation of China since its foundation in 1949. He noted that Resolution 2758, passed by a majority vote, recognised the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China, and did not acknowledge any other representation of China or Taiwan. Yang contended that if China's representation did not include Taiwan, there would have been no need to expel the representative of [[Chiang Kai-shek]].<ref name=":15">{{Cite web |last=张玲 |title=美蓄意歪曲挑战联大第2758号决议 外交部：美国的谎言重复一千遍，也变不成事实 |url=http://depts.taiwan.cn/news/202405/t20240511_12619407.htm |access-date=2024-12-08 |website=中国台湾网}}</ref> Beijing asserts that Taiwan falls completely within China's international law identity,<ref name=":15" /><ref name=":13">{{Cite web |last=Zhang |first=Yi |date=2024-09-14 |title=Taiwan parties, groups slam false claims about UN resolution |url=https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202409/14/WS66e5960ca3103711928a81b9.html |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=[[China Daily]] |archive-date=7 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241207111734/https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202409/14/WS66e5960ca3103711928a81b9.html |url-status=live }}</ref> without any need to mention Taiwan separately, according to [[state media]] outlet ''[[China Daily]]''.<ref name=":13" />

Beijing states that the [[1943 Cairo Declaration|Cairo Declaration]] and the [[Potsdam Declaration|Potsdam Proclamation]] affirmed Taiwan's return to China, while acknowledging that the 1951 [[Treaty of San Francisco|San Francisco Peace Treaty]] did not explicitly address Taiwan's sovereignty.<ref name=":11" /> Chinese diplomats criticised the United States for disregarding the [[1943 Cairo Declaration|Cairo Declaration]] and the [[Potsdam Declaration|Potsdam Proclamation]] in which they believed that the United States had agreed on the return of Taiwan to China.<ref name=":15" /><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-05-11 |title=秦刚：战后秩序必须维护 国家统一必须实现 - 国际 - 即时国际 |url=https://www.sinchew.com.my/?p=4669349 |access-date=2024-12-08 |website=星洲网 Sin Chew Daily Malaysia Latest News and Headlines |language=zh-CN}}</ref> The Chinese government also claims that it reached [[1992 consensus|a consensus with Taiwan]] in 1992, in which both China and Taiwan agreed that there is [[One China|but one China]] across the [[Taiwan Strait|Taiwan strait]]. China set this consensus as a premise for any official interaction with Taiwan.<ref name=":10">{{cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Yu-Jie |last2=Cohen |first2=Jerome A. |date=2019 |title=China-Taiwan relations re-examined: the "1992 consensus" and Cross-Strait agreement |url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=alr |journal=Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania Law School]] |access-date=20 July 2024 |quote=Unlike her predecessor Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen has not recognized the existence of the “1992 Consensus.” Yet, she has tried to reach a middle ground between Beijing’s stance and that of her own party, the DPP. In her inaugural speech, she carefully worded her position, acknowledging the first meeting between [[Straits Exchange Foundation|SEF]] and [[Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits|ARATS]] in 1992 as “historical fact.” She stated that the meeting had “arrived at various joint acknowledgments and understandings” and was conducted “in a spirit of mutual understanding and a political attitude of seeking common ground while setting aside differences,” a phrase often used by Beijing... In other words, while Tsai did not accept the “1992 Consensus,” she acknowledged that the 1992 meeting took place in a positive spirit that should lay the groundwork for sustaining crossstrait peace.<br> ...Under international law, the 1992 SEF-ARATS exchanges would not amount to a legally binding agreement on the meaning of “One China” and other sovereignty questions. While SEF and ARATS apparently possessed the capacity to represent their own governments in concluding agreements on cross-strait cooperation, the intention of each organization was to sign legal instruments recording their agreement on the specific matters under negotiation... The parties never evinced an intention to conclude an agreement on sovereignty matters involving the notion of “One China” precisely because they could not reach agreement on the thorny issues involved. Instead, they bypassed the “One China” issues and went on to conclude formal written agreements on technical matters. In other words, the element of intent to create legal obligations on sovereignty questions did not exist. This is evident from the caution of SEF—it carefully avoided committing itself to a written agreement with regard to the all-important political issue and suggested that each side orally state its differing position separately. This poses a contrast with the formal agreements later concluded by the two organizations on various economic and technical matters. None of these cross-strait agreements touched upon the “One China” issue, and all were concluded without regard to it.}}</ref>

China has a long-standing policy that states cannot simultaneously have diplomatic relations with it and Taiwan, on the basis of the one-China principle. The number of states with relations to the Republic of China has declined over time as states switched recognition to the People's Republic. In early 2024, [[Nauru]] was the first country to cite Resolution 2758 as a reason for cutting its diplomatic ties with Taiwan and establishing relations with China.<ref name=":12" /> The official [[Xinhua News Agency]] noted that China established diplomatic ties with 183 countries on the condition of its one-China principle.<ref name=":13" />

On 7 March 2025, at a press conference on the sidelines of the [[Two Sessions]] of the [[14th National People's Congress]], [[Foreign Minister of China]] [[Wang Yi (politician)|Wang Yi]] stated that Taiwan can only be referred to as "[[Taiwan, Province of China]]" and the resolution settled the matter of China's representation and entirely ruled out the prospect of “[[two Chinas]]” or “one China, one Taiwan.”<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2025/03/08/2003833069|title=Taiwan rejects China's UN claim|newspaper=Taipei Times|first1=Li-hua|last1=Chung|first2=Esme|last2=Yeh|date=2025-03-08|access-date=2025-03-09}}</ref>

On September 30, 2025, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a paper stating China's position on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China |orig-date=2025-09-30 |title=China’s Position Paper on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 |url=https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zy/wjzc/202509/t20250930_11721842.html |access-date=2025-10-26 |website=[[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (China)]]}}</ref>

=== Taiwan ===
In 2000, Taiwanese foreign minister [[Tien Hung-mao]] addressed to the [[Legislative Yuan]] that the Republic of China was a founding member of the United Nations, yet Resolution 2758, which addressed the representation of the people of the [[Mainland China|Mainland Area]], excluded the representation of the people of the [[Taiwan Area]], a situation he found inappropriate. Tien noted that if Taiwan seeks to join the UN as a new member, its application would likely face a [[veto]] from China and objections from other [[United Nations Security Council|UN Security Council]] members. Alternatively, if Taiwan aims to rejoin the UN, it must overturn Resolution 2758, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in the [[United Nations General Assembly|UN General Assembly]]—a highly challenging objective to achieve.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-03-17 |title=立法院報告「我國參與聯合國策略之檢討」 |url=https://www.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1020&s=95749 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240416131021/https://www.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1020&s=95749 |archive-date=16 April 2024 |access-date=2024-12-08 |website=[[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Taiwan)]] |language=zh-Hant-tw}}</ref>

The [[Pan-Green Coalition]], led by the [[Democratic Progressive Party]] (DPP), believes that Resolution 2758 has been distorted by China and aim to return to the UN as Taiwan,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-09-20 |title=台灣VS.中華民國！「2758號」提案 綠藍過招 |url=https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3vs-%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8B-2758%E8%99%9F-%E6%8F%90%E6%A1%88-%E7%B6%A0%E8%97%8D%E9%81%8E%E6%8B%9B-105301877.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241201195659/https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%25E5%258F%25B0%25E7%2581%25A3vs-%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E8%258F%25AF%25E6%25B0%2591%25E5%259C%258B-2758%25E8%2599%259F-%25E6%258F%2590%25E6%25A1%2588-%25E7%25B6%25A0%25E8%2597%258D%25E9%2581%258E%25E6%258B%259B-105301877.html |archive-date=1 December 2024 |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=[[Yahoo News]] |language=zh-Hant-TW}}</ref> while the [[Kuomintang]] (KMT)-led [[Pan-Blue Coalition]] is against the resolution itself and aims to amend the resolution to allow the [[Republic of China]] to return to the UN.<ref name="b832">{{cite web |date=2024-09-20 |title=藍提案反對2758號決議 籲速讓中華民國重返聯合國 |url=https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202409200111.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241009205820/https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202409200111.aspx |archive-date=2024-10-09 |access-date=2024-10-12 |website=中央社 CNA |language=zh}}</ref> The two camps are also divided on whether there is a consensus in 1992. President [[Ma Ying-jeou]] from KMT accepted this consensus during his administration, while the consensus was later denied by President [[Tsai Ing-wen]] from the DPP who questioned whether such consensus ever actually taken place in the meetings.<ref name=":10" />

[[2008 Taiwanese United Nations membership referendum|Two referendums]] were held in 2008 to determine whether the country should re-join the UN as the Republic of China or join the UN as Taiwan. Both referendums failed to meet the required voter turnout.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fiske |first=Nick |date=2008-03-22 |title=Taiwan referendums on UN membership fail |url=https://www.jurist.org/news/2008/03/taiwan-referendums-on-un-membership/ |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=JURISTnews |language=en-US |archive-date=1 December 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241201140156/https://www.jurist.org/news/2008/03/taiwan-referendums-on-un-membership/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A United States Department of State spokesman warned such referendums may alter the status quo of Taiwan, breaking the promises that Chen made to President [[George W. Bush]].<ref>{{Cite news |date=August 10, 2007 |title=Taiwan to push U.N. referendum despite China protest |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/world/taiwan-to-push-u-n-referendum-despite-china-protest-idUSTP208913/ |work=Reuters}}</ref> Since 2009, Taiwan has not submitted requests for UN membership, but continues to protest its exclusion from the UN system through other countries.<ref>{{cite news |date=2021-09-15 |title=駁國民黨批評 外交部：國際友台動能超越以往 |url=https://udn.com/news/story/6656/5748605 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021131351/https://udn.com/news/story/6656/5748605 |archive-date=2021-10-21 |accessdate=2021-10-21 |work=[[United Daily News]] |agency=[[Central News Agency (Taiwan)]]}}</ref>

In September 2024, Taiwan intended to draw intention to the Chinese distortion of Resolution 2758 with the goal of rejoining the UN.<ref>{{cite news |date=2024-09-10 |title=台灣聯合國協進會赴美 籲聯大討論 "2758號決議" 的 "一中" 問題 |url=https://www.voacantonese.com/a/tw-un-alliance-travels-to-ny-to-promote-taiwan-s-un-bid-20240909/7777249.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240915081907/https://www.voacantonese.com/a/tw-un-alliance-travels-to-ny-to-promote-taiwan-s-un-bid-20240909/7777249.html |archive-date=2024-09-15 |accessdate=2024-09-15 |work=[[Voice of America]] |language=zh |agency=}}</ref> Several DPP legislators urged the Legislative Yuan to declare that Resolution 2758 does not concern Taiwan's sovereignty or international status.<ref name=":11" /> The DPP legislators attempted to make an [[Motion (parliamentary procedure)|interim motion]], which was, however, ignored by the president of the [[Legislative Yuan]], [[Han Kuo-yu]] from the KMT, throughout the parliamentary session.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-09-18 |title=朝野協商未處理2758決議不涉台 吳思瑤：悲憤忍淚 &#124; 政治 |url=https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202409180174.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240924035359/https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202409180174.aspx |archive-date=2024-09-24 |accessdate=2024-09-24 |language=zh-hans-tw |agency=[[Central News Agency (Taiwan)]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-09-18 |title=朝野協商綠委提案「2758號不涉台決議」 韓國瑜冷處裡直接散會 |url=https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=24&SerialNo=211841 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240919064441/https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=24&SerialNo=211841 |archive-date=2024-09-19 |accessdate=2024-09-19 |work=[[Up Media]]}}</ref>

=== United States ===
{{Further|Taiwan–United States relations|Three Communiqués|Taiwan Relations Act|Six Assurances}}

The US's official policy is to recognize the PRC government as "the sole legal government of China", and "it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China".<ref name=":5">{{Cite wikisource
 | title = US–PRC Joint Communique, August 17, 1982
 | last  = Governments of United States of America and the People's Republic of China
 | year  = 17 August 1982
}}</ref> According to a 2014 [[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) report, the US administrations have not explicitly stated a position on the [[political status of Taiwan]].<ref name=":16">{{Cite web |last=Kan |first=Shirley A. |date=2014-10-10 |title=China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30341.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170410204327/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30341.pdf |archive-date=2017-04-10 |access-date=2017-03-07 |website=[[Congressional Research Service]] |pages=39 |language=en |quote=}}</ref>

In April 2024, US State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Lambert spoke at a [[German Marshall Fund]] (GMF) seminar, saying that "Resolution 2758 does not endorse, is not equivalent to, and does not reflect a consensus for the PRC's [[One China principle|'one China' principle]]".<ref name=":6" /> Lambert added that the Chinese government "mischaracterizes the resolution by falsely conflating it with China’s ‘one China’ principle and wrongly asserts that it reflects an international consensus for its ‘one China’ principle."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-05-01 |title=US official raps China over UN Resolution 2758 |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/05/01/2003817197 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240501115412/https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/05/01/2003817197 |archive-date=1 May 2024 |access-date=2024-05-01 |website=[[Taipei Times]] |language=en}}</ref> In May 2024, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the US's 'one China' policy "has not changed".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=Matthew |date=28 May 2024 |title=Department Press Briefing – May 28, 2024 |url=https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-may-28-2024/#post-561788-CHINATAIWAN |access-date=30 May 2024 |website=[[United States Department of State]] |archive-date=29 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240529000309/https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-may-28-2024/#post-561788-CHINATAIWAN |url-status=live }}</ref>

According to some analysts at the GMF, Resolution 2758 solved the issue of "China's representation" in the United Nations—but it left the issue of Taiwan's representation unresolved.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Drun |first1=Jessica |last2=Glaser |first2=Bonnie S. |author-link2=Bonnie S. Glaser |date=24 March 2022 |title=The Distortion of UN Resolution 2758 and Limits on Taiwan's Access to the United Nations |url=https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and-limits-taiwans-access-united-nations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229075722/https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and-limits-taiwans-access-united-nations |archive-date=29 December 2022 |access-date=29 December 2022 |website=[[German Marshall Fund]]}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last1=Glaser |first1=Bonnie S. |author-link=Bonnie S. Glaser |last2=deLisle |first2=Jacques |date=30 April 2024 |title=Exposing the PRC's Distortion of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to Press its Claim Over Taiwan |url=https://www.gmfus.org/news/exposing-prcs-distortion-un-general-assembly-resolution-2758-press-its-claim-over-taiwan |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240430024019/https://www.gmfus.org/news/exposing-prcs-distortion-un-general-assembly-resolution-2758-press-its-claim-over-taiwan |archive-date=30 April 2024 |access-date=2024-04-30 |website=[[German Marshall Fund]] |language=en}}</ref>

While keeping diplomatic relations with the PRC, the US expects that "the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means".<ref>{{Cite wikisource|title=Taiwan Relations Act|last=Congress of the United States|year=10 April 1979}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Kan |first1=Shirley A. |last2=Morrison |first2=Wayne M. |date=2013-01-04 |title=U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues |url=http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/202880.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161211221234/http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/202880.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-11 |access-date=2017-05-11 |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |page=4 |quote=}}</ref> The US "would continue to maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan".<ref name=":5" /> In February 2025, a group of U.S. congressional representatives introduced a non-binding resolution that rejected the PRC's use of Resolution 2758, which it stated had been "weaponized."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-02-22 |title=U.S. lawmakers reject China 'weaponizing' U.N. resolution against Taiwan |url=https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202502220004 |access-date=2025-02-23 |website=[[Focus Taiwan]] |language=en-US}}</ref> In April 2025, the [[Indiana House of Representatives]] passed a resolution supporting Taiwan and opposing any "distortion or misuse" of Resolution 2758.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chen |first=Kelvin |date=2025-04-06 |title=Indiana reaffirms economic ties with Taiwan |url=https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/6077927 |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=[[Taiwan News]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-06 |title=Indiana House reaffirms sister ties with Taiwan |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2025/04/06/2003834710 |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref>

=== Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China ===
In July 2024, at the first [[Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China]] summit in Taiwan, attending lawmakers agreed on a resolution to counter China's interpretation of Resolution 2758 in their home country legislatures.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Yang |first=William |date=2024-07-30 |title=Foreign lawmakers shine light on China tensions over Taiwan |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/foreign-lawmakers-shine-light-on-china-tensions-over-taiwan/7718548.html |access-date=2024-07-30 |website=[[Voice of America]] |language=en |archive-date=30 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240730163632/https://www.voanews.com/a/foreign-lawmakers-shine-light-on-china-tensions-over-taiwan/7718548.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Chung |first=Jake |date=2024-07-31 |title=PRC distorts UN resolution: Lai |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/07/31/2003821549 |access-date=2024-07-30 |website=[[Taipei Times]] |archive-date=30 July 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240730163715/https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/07/31/2003821549 |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Australia ===
{{Further|Australia–Taiwan relations}}
In August 2024, the [[Parliament of Australia]] formally condemned China's use of UN Resolution 2758.<ref name=":7">{{Cite news |last=Packham |first=Ben |date=August 21, 2024 |title=Parties unite to condemn Beijing's UN machination |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/parties-unite-to-condemn-beijings-un-machination/news-story/b689f6352a14e0db4f9caaab58054bcd |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240821232530/https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/parties-unite-to-condemn-beijings-un-machination/news-story/b689f6352a14e0db4f9caaab58054bcd?amp&nk=755179b1d4d65698e2e12e11c377ca0a-1724282749 |archive-date=August 21, 2024 |access-date=August 21, 2024 |work=[[The Australian]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Tillett |first=Andrew |date=2024-08-21 |title=Australia leads push-back against China's anti-Taiwan campaign |url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-to-lead-push-back-against-china-s-anti-taiwan-campaign-20240821-p5k4a4 |access-date=2024-08-22 |website=[[Australian Financial Review]] |language=en |archive-date=22 August 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240822025211/https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-to-lead-push-back-against-china-s-anti-taiwan-campaign-20240821-p5k4a4 |url-status=live }}</ref> The parliament declared that UN Resolution 2758, "does not establish the People’s Republic of China's sovereignty over Taiwan and does not determine the future status of Taiwan in the UN".<ref name=":7" />

=== Netherlands ===
In September 2024, the Dutch [[House of Representatives (Netherlands)|House of Representatives]] recognized that UN Resolution 2758 does not judge Taiwan's future participation in the UN or other international organizations, and also does not support China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. The vote of 147 to 3 rejects China's interpretation of the resolution in its claims over Taiwan and calls for an EU-wide effort to support Taiwan's representation.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-09-11 |title=Moties ingediend bij het tweeminutendebat AVVN |url=https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/stemmingsuitslagen/detail?id=2024P13922&did=2024P13922 |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=www.tweedekamer.nl |language=nl |archive-date=13 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240913144201/https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/stemmingsuitslagen/detail?id=2024P13922&did=2024P13922 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=中央通訊社 |date=2024-09-13 |title=荷蘭國會通過動議 拒絕中國扭曲聯大第2758號決議 {{!}} 政治 |url=https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202409130013.aspx |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=中央社 CNA |language=zh-Hant-TW |archive-date=13 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240913011956/https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202409130013.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref> The House of Representatives passed a similar resolution in September 2025.<ref>{{Cite web |last=I-chia |first=Lee |date=2025-09-22 |title=MOFA thanks Dutch parliament for Taiwan motion |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2025/09/22/2003844213 |access-date=2025-09-23 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref>

=== European Union ===
In October 2024, the [[European Parliament]] recognized that Resolution 2758 does not take a position on Taiwan, has no bearing on Taiwan's participation in UN bodies, and that China's coercive measure to achieve unification are contradictory to international law.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Benakis |first=Theodoros |date=2024-10-24 |title=Parliament warns China is trying to distort history and international law in Taiwan |url=https://www.europeaninterest.eu/parliament-warns-china-is-trying-to-distort-history-and-international-law-in-taiwan/ |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=European Interest |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-10-25 |title=European Parliament backs Taiwan on UN resolution |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/10/25/2003825837 |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=[[Taipei Times]] |archive-date=8 November 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241108055621/https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/10/25/2003825837 |url-status=live }}</ref> The European Commission stated that it opposes "any unilateral actions that change the status quo by force or coercion."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-10-24 |title=European Commission joins Taiwan, US in highlighting Resolution 2758 |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/10/24/2003825812 |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref> In April 2025, the European Parliament said in a report that China has attempted to distort Resolution 2758 to impede Taiwan's participation in international bodies.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-04 |title=Ministry thanks European Parliament for support of resolutions |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2025/04/04/2003834590 |access-date=2025-04-03 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref>

=== Canada ===
In November 2024, the [[House of Commons of Canada]] unanimously passed a motion stating that Resolution 2758 did not establish Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and had no bearing on Taiwan's future participation in UN bodies.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Khan |first=Fion |date=2024-11-07 |title=Canada House passes motion on UN Resolution 2758 |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2024/11/07/2003826537 |access-date=2024-11-11 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-11-07 |title=Canada House of Commons backs Taiwan's international participation |url=https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5966798 |access-date=2024-11-11 |website=[[Taiwan News]] |language=en}}</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
In November 2024, the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom]] unanimously passed a motion stating that Resolution 2758 does not address the political status of Taiwan, does not establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan, and is silent on Taiwan's participation in UN bodies.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-11-30 |title=UK passes UN Resolution 2758 motion |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2024/11/30/2003827722 |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Chau |first=Thompson |date=November 28, 2024 |title=British Parliament rejects China's U.N. claims over Taiwan |url=https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Taiwan-tensions/British-Parliament-rejects-China-s-U.N.-claims-over-Taiwan |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=[[Nikkei Asia]] |language=en |archive-date=30 November 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241130013306/https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Taiwan-tensions/British-Parliament-rejects-China-s-U.N.-claims-over-Taiwan |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Belgium ===
In March 2025, the [[Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)|Chamber of Representatives]] unanimously passed a resolution stating that Resolution 2758 does not take a position on Taiwan.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-22 |title=Minister thanks Belgium for pro-Taiwan resolution |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2025/03/22/2003833866 |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=[[Taipei Times]]}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[China and the United Nations]]
*[[Taiwan and the United Nations]]
*[[United Nations General Assembly resolution]]
*[[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 505]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{wikisource}}
* [https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/2758(XXVI) Original text of Resolution 2758 (XXVI)]
* [https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/fc/english.pdf Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations signed and ratified by Republic of China]
* [http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/pv.1976 Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations (continued)]

{{United Nations}}
{{Cross-Strait relations}}

[[Category:United Nations General Assembly resolutions|26 2758]]
[[Category:1971 in the United Nations]]
[[Category:1971 in law]]
[[Category:1971 in China]]
[[Category:1971 in Taiwan]]
[[Category:China and the United Nations|General Assembly Resolution 2858]]
[[Category:Taiwan and the United Nations|General Assembly Resolution 2858]]
[[Category:Cross-strait relations]]
[[Category:Criticism of the United Nations]]