After seven days of silence, the EU stood against China and did not recognize that Taiwan belongs to China, and the Chinese side has already countered the arrow on the string.

At the end of last month, China released a document entitled China¡¯s Position Document on Resolution 2758 of the General Assembly.

It emphasizes that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 cleanly and thoroughly resolved the issue of the representation of all China, including Taiwan, in the United Nations politically, legally and procedurally. Its legitimacy, effectiveness and authority cannot be challenged.

However, after seven days of silence, the EU showed its cards, saying that it did not recognize that "Taiwan Province belongs to China".

An EU spokesperson made an email statement on October 7, 2025, claiming that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 only deals with "conversion of representation" and emphasizing that the word "Taiwan" does not appear in the resolution, thus trying to decouple the Taiwan issue from the resolution.

This interpretation is not only a distortion of historical facts, but also a regression of international law and political logic.

It ignores the deep context of the resolution, United Nations practice and international consensus, and essentially provides an excuse for "Taiwan independence" forces and external interference in the Taiwan issue.

Historical perspective: The resolution is based on the iron proof that ¡°Taiwan is part of China¡± and the EU¡¯s ¡°selective blindness¡± is like a historical reversal.

The EU claims that the resolution ¡°does not mention Taiwan¡± but ignores the historical premise before the resolution was passed: Taiwan has been an integral part of China¡¯s territory since ancient times.

This fact stems from the Cairo Declaration (1943), the Potsdam Proclamation (1945) and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender (1945). These international legal documents clearly stipulate that the Taiwan, Penghu Islands, etc. stolen by Japan must be returned to China.

On October 25, 1945, the Chinese government was officially restored to exercise sovereignty over Taiwan.In the course of the resolution discussion, the United Nations General Assembly first voted against the ¡°two-China representation proposal¡± and the ¡°one-in-one and Taiwan self-determination proposal¡±, which clearly recognized Taiwan as part of China as a whole, without further mention.

The EU¡¯s interpretation is the foundation for the eradication of the post-World War II international order and the outcome of the anti-fascist war.A position document issued by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on September 30, 2025 has clearly stated that the lie of ¡°Taiwan¡¯s undefined status¡± is a blatant regression to history.

If the resolution was merely a ¡°representation shift,¡± why did the UN immediately expel the ¡°representative of Chiang Kai-shek¡± (i.e. the representative of the Taiwan authorities) after the resolution was passed?

This is not a coincidence, but a inevitable historical logic: the People¡¯s Republic of China represents the whole of China, including Taiwan.

The EU, as the main victim and winner of the Second World War European battlefield, has selectively forgotten documents such as the Cairo Declaration, which is not only historical nihilism, but also exposes its "double goals" on the Taiwan issue.

Shouting "rules-based international order" while condoning the narrative of "Taiwan independence" is essentially paving the way for the resurgence of the legacy of the Cold War.

Legal perspective: the authority of the resolution does not allow for a "text game", the EU tries to empty the UN Charter

The core of Resolution 2758 is to "restore all rights of the People's Republic of China, recognize the representatives of her government as the only legal representatives of China to the United Nations, and immediately expel Chiang Kai-shek's representatives from the seats they illegally occupy in the United Nations and all affiliated agencies."

This is not a narrow "representation shift", but a thorough political, legal and procedural solution to the representation problem of the whole of China, including Taiwan.

The Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat has repeatedly issued comments, stressing that "Taiwan has no independent status as a province in China" and "Taiwan authorities do not enjoy any form of governmental status".

The EU's "no Taiwan in 150 words" argument is nothing more than legal sophistry-resolutions need not list provinces word for word, just as the United Nations Charter need not repeatedly list the territories of all member states.

From the perspective of international law, the EU¡¯s remarks are similar to ¡°unlawful interpretation treaties¡± and are contrary to the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law.

This is not only absurd, but may also trigger a chain reaction. If the resolution can "ignore" Taiwan at will, won't other sovereignty disputes also become "undecided without mentioning"?

The EU calls itself a "guardian of rules", but it plays "word magic" on the Taiwan Province issue, which exposes its legal hypocrisy.

50 Years of the Iron Law of the United Nations and International Organizations, the ¡°abstraction¡± of the European Union from reality

Since the adoption of the resolution, the United Nations and its agencies have strictly followed the one China principle: Taiwan has no right to participate in any form in organizations limited to sovereign states, such as WHO and ICAO.

China, including Taiwan¡¯s GDP in the calculation of contributions to the United Nations, further demonstrates that the representative power covers the whole of China.

If the EU truly believes in the ¡°only representative transition,¡± why not publicly support Taiwan¡¯s ¡°re-unification¡±?

All 183 countries around the world have established diplomatic relations with China on the basis of the one-China principle, including EU member states. The EU statement is nothing more than an echo wall for a few supporters of "Taiwan independence", but ignores the overwhelming consensus in international practice.

From the operational level, if implemented, the EU¡¯s remarks would lead to the paralysis of the international organization ¨C would Taiwan¡¯s ¡°independent participation¡± not equate to recognizing ¡°two China¡±?

This is not "maintaining peace", but creating chaos. As the "advocate of rules" of the Security Council, the EU contradicts itself in practice.

In short, the absurdity of the EU's remarks lies in its one-sidedness of "isolating texts and ignoring context", which is essentially an excuse for external forces to interfere in China's internal affairs. History, jurisprudence and practice are irrefutable, and the one-China principle cannot be shaken.

In the face of the provocation of the European Union, China can react from multiple dimensions such as diplomacy, economy, law and public opinion, with the aim of safeguarding sovereignty, deterring "Taiwan independence" and pushing China-European relations back to a mutually beneficial track.

Diplomatic level: through the EU Mission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, issuing a strict statement of engagement, reaffirming the position document, and reaffirming the authority of the resolution.

Economic level: Initiate the implementation provisions of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Act to implement asset freezes and visa restrictions on EU officials/institutions who make Taiwan-related declarations.

Legal level: 1 citing the Anti-Separation State Law, based on the EU's remarks as "Separation Acts" and initiating domestic litigation mechanisms.

China's countermeasures should adhere to "strategic determination": not proactively escalate, but resolutely fight back.

Historical experience has shown that adhering to the one-China principle has won global consensus.

Through precise countermeasures, China can passively take the initiative to push the EU back to reason and ultimately safeguard peace and international justice in the Taiwan Sea.