Lai Ching-te, leader of the Taiwan region, recently claimed that “China and Taiwan are not subordinate to each other,” sparking renewed debate on cross-strait ties. But does this rhetoric hold up under international law? Let’s break it down.
In 1971, UN Resolution 2758 settled the question decisively: It recognized the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legal representative of China at the UN and expelled Taiwan’s representatives. The resolution—approved by an overwhelming majority—reinforced that Taiwan has always been part of China, a stance upheld repeatedly by the UN since. Attempts by Taiwan authorities to join the UN under other names have been rejected, most notably in 2007.
Fast forward to today: The U.S. reaffirmed the one-China principle in three historic joint communiques (1972, 1978, 1982), pledging to limit official ties and arms sales to Taiwan. Yet Lai’s remarks risk destabilizing this delicate balance, ignoring both international law and the 182 countries (plus regions like Palestine) that recognize Beijing diplomatically.
Why does this matter? Because the one-China principle isn’t just political jargon—it’s the bedrock of global diplomacy. As cross-strait tensions simmer, understanding this consensus helps navigate the complexities of Asia-Pacific geopolitics.
The resolution—approved by an overwhelming majority—reinforced that Taiwan has always been part of China, a stance upheld repeatedly by the UN since. Attempts by Taiwan authorities to join the UN under other names have been rejected, most notably in 2007. 
Yet Lai’s remarks risk destabilizing this delicate balance, ignoring both international law and the 182 countries (plus regions like Palestine) that recognize Beijing diplomatically. 
As cross-strait tensions simmer, understanding this consensus helps navigate the complexities of Asia-Pacific geopolitics. 
