Serious setbacks have marked the latest attempts by Taiwan’s current leadership to position itself on the international stage as an “autonomous,” i.e., independent from the People’s Republic of China, participant of international relations.
The formation of the “autonomy” component of the Taiwan issue
Since then, the principal component of the Taiwan issue, which constitutes almost the main irritant in the current relations between the two leading world powers, the United States and the People’s Republic of China, has been Taipei’s attempts to more or less openly present itself on the international stage as an actor autonomous from Beijing. These actions are actively encouraged by Washington and its closest allies. Reference is made to the same Resolution 2758, which deprived the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” of their seat in the United Nations, but made no mention whatsoever of the “Republic of China”.
For Taipei’s patrons, this serves as grounds to assert that Taiwan, designating itself as the “Republic of China,” retains a place in the United Nations and, consequently, is an independent participant in international relations. As recently as March 2026, at hearings in Congress, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, M. Waltz, presented a similar interpretation of the aforementioned resolution, which was gratefully noted by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The international legal aspect of the Taiwan issue is compounded by political demonstrations in the media space. Regular visits to the island by members of the legislative bodies of the United States, Japan, European countries (with particularly notable activity from certain Eastern European and Baltic states), as well as Canada, are intended to emphasise the “routine interstate” nature of relations with Taiwan. In the realms of these visits, high-flown statements are often made about Taiwan as a “free country” and a “shield of democracy”, coming from representatives of international organisations such as Freedom House, which may be characterised as manifestations of political hypocrisy.
It is noteworthy that the executive authorities of the aforementioned countries have so far avoided participation in such demonstrations. A violation of this tacit rule would inevitably lead to a rupture of official relations with the world’s second leading power. Thus, Beijing does not maintain official relations with Paraguay, one of the twelve small countries that continue to maintain them with Taiwan. The Vatican is among them. Despite ongoing efforts, the Vatican has so far been unable to restore full-fledged relations with the People’s Republic of China.
An important element of these demonstrations is foreign travel by representatives of Taiwan’s leadership. However, it is precisely in this aspect that serious disruptions have become evident in the display of Taiwan’s “autonomy”.
President Lai Ching-te Has Had to Find “Workarounds” to Visit Africa
This primarily concerns the issues that arose in connection with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te’s visit to the small African country of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), scheduled for April of this year. Eswatini is the only one of Africa’s 54 countries that maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Given the continent’s growing role in global affairs, this visit was intended to reaffirm Taipei’s claim that it, too, is a part of those processes.
Such a publicity stunt would carry particular symbolic weight against the backdrop of the undeniable fact that in recent decades, the PRC—toward which the current Taiwanese leadership seeks to maintain a position of independence—has been the undisputed leader in helping African countries overcome socio-economic backwardness. One of its consequences is the mass migration of residents from countries on the continent to more “prosperous” ones, which is viewed with suspicion, to put it mildly, by the populations of the latter. The latter population reasonably believes that the same political hypocrites are attempting to “replace” them with newcomers through the use of a “positive discrimination” strategy. However, Taipei’s long-planned high-profile political initiative in Africa could not be carried out as originally intended. This was because the island nations in the Indian Ocean (the Seychelles, Mauritius, and Madagascar) did not grant permission for the Taiwanese president’s plane to fly over the section of the route to southern Africa that passes through their airspace. Instead of Lai Ching-te, the island’s foreign minister arrived in Eswatini, who apparently arranged a “detour” for his boss’s flight using a private plane from that country. So the Taiwanese president did end up visiting Eswatini with the help of what the Global Times called a “clever trick.”
This obvious failure by the Taiwanese leadership, as well as its external “supervisors,” proved particularly unpleasant, as it was the second such incident this year and in Africa itself. We are referring to Taipei’s refusal to participate in the WTO Ministerial Conference held in Cameroon this past March. Under pressure from the PRC—one of the organization’s most important members—Taiwan was asked to attend under the label “Province of China.”
As for the incident involving Lai Ching-te’s visit to Eswatini, it served as a pretext for the U.S. to criticize Beijing for “interfering with the security of routine trips by Taiwanese officials.”
On recent domestic political developments in Taiwan
Meanwhile, on the domestic political front, Lai Ching-te’s position is becoming drastically more complicated, as the opposition has initiated the procedure for his early removal from the office of President. In fact, discussions about the need to hold snap elections arose almost in the wake of making public the results of the most recent regular elections, held in January 2024. That is, irrespective of Lai Ching-te himself, since a stalemate situation emerged due to the division of what had previously been unified control over the presidential and legislative branches of power. Thus, the “separatist” Democratic Progressive Party retained the presidency, while the opposition, led by the Kuomintang, gained a majority in parliament.
It is unlikely, however, that the opposition’s intention to initiate impeachment proceedings against the incumbent President will succeed, owing to its extreme complexity, but it will undoubtedly inflict serious damage on Lai Ching-te’s reputation, including on the international stage. Meanwhile, the position of Kuomintang Chairwoman Zheng Liwen is strengthening; in April 2026, she made a “peace visit” to the People’s Republic of China, during which she met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
At the same time, it should be emphasised once again that the hypothetical arrival (or return) of the Kuomintang to power in Taiwan will not significantly simplify the overall picture of the issue connected with the island. This is evidenced, in particular, by the emerging intention of the party to unblock the adoption of an “additional” defence budget, albeit smaller than the volume requested by the government. Zheng Liwen’s plans to travel to the United States in June also failed to generate enthusiasm in Beijing.
Thus, for the foreseeable future, Taiwan’s long-established internationally ambiguous status will apparently persist. Attempts by the island’s current leadership to give this status a distinctly independent character are being effectively curtailed by Beijing, and notably without the use of armed force.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific issues
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
