In late July, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) held its 2024 summit in Taipei. Parliamentarians from more than 20 countries arrived in Taipei with the aim to place Taipei under its “democratic umbrella.”

At the conclusion of the summit, two Republic of China (Taiwan) Members of the Legislative Yuan – one from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and another from the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) – join the bloc as Taiwan co-chairs. In addition, IPAC passed a “Model Resolution on 2758,” after years of ROC Foreign Ministry advocacy, originated under the Kuomintang (KMT) government, to reject “[the Communist] China’s manipulative attempts to dictate relations between sovereign states & exclude Taiwan from international organisations.”

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which served as the model for IPAC’s “Model Resolution,” was indeed a deplorable creation.

In 1971, influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), 76 UN member states banded together to vote out the Republic of China government in Taipei and admit Communist representatives to the United Nations. This occurred while the Chinese mainland was plunged into the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, which had begun in 1966.

The final vote count was 76 to 35, while 17 abstained. The ROC representatives in the UN, in dramatic fashion, had to walk out of the General Assembly Hall before the vote was even conducted to avoid public disgrace.

IPAC is right to say that “only by standing together and demanding accountability from [Communist] China, will democratic countries uphold the rules-based system.”

However, where were these democratic countries in 1971 when the UNGA voted to admit the Communists without ensuring any rights for Taiwanese participation?

GA Resolution 2758 was far from a necessary evil that had to be rushed through. It is the root cause of the complete exclusion of Taiwanese people from international organisations.

The Chiang Kai-Shek government was open to the possibility of dual representation, but 76 UN members states were more than willing to ignore this proposal, to go along with the Communist-sponsored proposition, and in the process, to leave Taiwanese people stranded in the dark.

Now, finally, a small part of the international community, confronted with the reality of the threat from the CCP, something the ROC government (on the mainland, then on Taiwan) has been facing for almost a century. Only now is the international community speaking up and disputing whether the UNGA Resolution constitutes the legal basis for the exclusion of Taiwanese people from international organisations.

However, the truth still remains that when the resolution was voted upon in 1971, members of the UN knew that once they expelled the ROC government in accordance with said resolution, Taiwanese people would lose their representation on the international stage. Seventy six nations were were willing to go along with this outcome.

IPAC should have gone further to recognise the fault of the UNGA in 1971 instead of simply blaming the Communists while somehow still embracing, and legitimising the resolution.

IPAC should also focus its discourse on how the democracy on Taiwan, through the ROC Constitution, could serve as a role model for the liberalisation and democratisation of mainland China.

As US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated in Beijing this April, “America’s actions are not aimed at holding back [mainland] China’s development,” and IPAC’s should not be either. IPAC should make it clear that its mission is not about stifling the Chinese people, but about empowering and uplifting them so that, one day, they can become masters of their own destiny.

It is also of utmost concern that the CCP has subjected several parliamentarians to, as IPAC puts it, “wholly inappropriate efforts to limit their fundamental freedoms.” The ROC Foreign Ministry has every right to welcome international friends and to determine how they may visit Taiwan as deemed appropriate by both Taipei and the visitors themselves. However, the subsequent IPAC statement seems to align more closely with the Communists' position, to the detriment of the ROC's interests.

While the CCP deliberately conflates its “One China Principle” with the “One China Policies” of various countries, the goal of IPAC’s Taipei Summit should not merely be to adhere to these policies, which in one way or another acknowledge the Communist claim over Taiwan and fail to uphold or even mention the ROC’s sovereignty.

This should not be the objective of the ROC Foreign Ministry either. The summit was held in Taipei and co-sponsored by the ROC Foreign Ministry, therefore should be held to the highest standards.

President Lai Ching-Te, in his speech at the IPAC Summit, stated that Taiwan is committed to maintaining regional peace and stability, standing firm yet respectful, and preserving the status quo. Taiwan is also willing to engage in dialogue with Beijing on the basis of equality and dignity, replacing confrontation with communication and exchange, and reducing conflict to achieve peace across the Taiwan Strait.

Regrettably, his actions, and previous words, have not aligned with this statement.

Not only did prominent American experts recommend that “in private conversations with Chinese officials, the Biden administration should acknowledge that the tone and content of Lai’s inaugural speech was a departure from those of his predecessors,” his government’s approach to the recent Kinmen mainland Chinese motor boat capsizing incident was unfortunately not characterised as equals on an equal footing.

The incident took place in February 2024 when a Taiwanese Coast Guard vessel collided with an unmarked and unregistered mainland motorboat that was illegally fishing in Kinmen waters. Two of the four crew members on the motorboat were killed.

Historically, such incidents have been addressed through channels like the Red Cross organisations on both sides of the Taiwan Strait or the Kinmen Waterway.

Mainland China designated a senior advisor from the Jinjiang City Red Cross, who also serves as the deputy director of the Quanzhou City Taiwan Affairs Office. In the CCP’s bureaucratic hierarchy, this position is roughly equivalent to a deputy at the county or section level. In contrast, Lai’s government sent a Deputy Director General of the Coast Guard Administration and a Deputy Director of the Department of Legal Affairs of the Mainland Affairs Council as Taiwan’s representatives in the negotiations. These officials are approximately at the rank of chief at the department or bureau level.

Perhaps Lai hoped to use this incident to compel the Communists to engage with his government officially as the CCP has refused to engage in an official manner with Lai’s government due to Lai’s refusal to recognize the 1992 consensus.

Unfortunately for Lai, they did not yield, and the meetings continued with a significant bureaucratic disparity in rank of approximately three levels between the two sides. This is unprecedented, and is far from what Lai had promised – dialogue with Beijing on the basis of equality and dignity. The issue was eventually resolved with the help of the KMT.

The IPAC summit in Taipei reflected the wide-reaching international support for Taiwan, but also exposed ongoing challenges in the ROC’s diplomatic efforts.

Despite President Lai’s commitment to dialogue, it is more important to align rhetoric with actionable diplomacy to overcome the injustices and obstacles that have long hindered cross-Strait relations and the ROC’s international standing.

Howard Cheng-Hao Shen is Asst Director of International Affairs for the Kuomintang.