Canada urged to stand firm on Taiwan as China rewrites global rules

Canada must reject China’s One-China principle and support Taiwan’s autonomy to protect peace, trade and international law

Canada must draw a sharp distinction between its longstanding One-China policy and the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly aggressive One-China principle, according to a new policy report from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI).

One China Second Thoughts: Why Canada Must Support Taiwan’s Resilience argues that Beijing is using a strategy that includes the manipulation of legal arguments and international norms, along with diplomatic coercion and selective historical framing, to legitimize its territorial claims over Taiwan and deter foreign opposition.

Scott Simon

Scott Simon, the report’s author, a senior fellow at MLI and a full professor at the University of Ottawa, writes that Canada “only agreed to ‘take note’ of China’s position, while calling it inappropriate either to endorse or challenge China’s claims.” He adds that the PRC’s One-China principle is “aspirational rather than factual.”

While often used interchangeably, Canada’s One-China policy and China’s One-China principle are not the same. Canada’s policy, adopted in 1970, recognizes the PRC as the government of China but takes no position on the legal status of Taiwan. In contrast, China’s One-China principle asserts that Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory—a claim Canada has never endorsed.

A key focus of the report is China’s reinterpretation of United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 2758, the 1971 vote that gave the PRC China’s seat at the UN. Simon writes, “This is blatant misinformation,” noting that “the resolution does not even mention Taiwan.”

While relatively obscure to most Canadians, Resolution 2758 has become central to China’s international argument. The resolution granted the PRC the seat previously held by the Republic of China (ROC) but did not refer to Taiwan’s sovereignty. China now uses it to block Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO).

According to the report, records of UN debates from the time show that several member states expressed concern over denying the people of Taiwan the right to self-determination.

In 1970, when Canada established diplomatic relations with the PRC, it avoided endorsing Beijing’s position on Taiwan. Then-foreign affairs minister Mitchell Sharp told Parliament that “the Canadian government does not consider it appropriate either to endorse or to challenge the Chinese government’s position on the status of Taiwan.”

Since then, Taiwan has undergone major democratic transformation. Simon writes that “Taiwan, even if it is still called the Republic of China, meets all of the criteria for statehood in the Montevideo Convention.” The Montevideo Convention of 1933 is a key international agreement that defines the four basic requirements of a state: a permanent population, defined territory, functioning government and capacity to conduct foreign relations.

The report also cites a 2003 Quebec Superior Court case in which the judge determined that Taiwan is “a clearly defined territory,” with “a permanent population,” “an effective government,” and the ability to engage in international relations, concluding that “for the purposes of the present case, Taiwan is a state.”

Beyond legal status, Taiwan plays a critical role in the global economy. It is a major supplier of semiconductors—the tiny chips that power everything from smartphones to cars—and is a key Canadian trading partner. Any conflict in the Taiwan Strait would threaten critical supply chains and global economic stability. The Indo-Pacific region, once seen as remote, now plays a central role in Canada’s security and prosperity.

The report also highlights China’s military activity in the region, warning that conflict in the Taiwan Strait would not just threaten Taiwan, but could spark “economic disruption on a scale not seen since the Second World War.”

Simon writes that “supporting Taiwan’s resilience is not just about Taiwan. It’s about preserving global peace, protecting Canadian prosperity, and standing up for international law.”

The report recommends several immediate actions, including joint naval transits through the Taiwan Strait with allies, public affirmation that the strait constitutes international waters, and clearer public communication about the difference between Canada’s One-China policy and the PRC’s One-China principle.

It also calls for deeper cooperation with regional allies, including Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Canada, Simon writes, should strengthen its intelligence sharing, law enforcement and security relations across the Indo-Pacific to help deter further aggression from Beijing.

Other recommendations include expanding trade and investment with Taiwan—particularly in semiconductors, artificial intelligence and clean energy—and increasing Canada’s diplomatic presence on the island. The report also urges lawmakers to prepare for potential contingencies, including economic fallout, refugee displacement and evacuation scenarios.

Parliament has already taken steps in this direction. On Nov. 6, 2024, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion stating that “the United Nations Resolution 2758 of Oct. 25, 1971, does not establish the People’s Republic of China’s sovereignty over Taiwan and does not determine the future status of Taiwan in the United Nations.”

The report links this motion to similar actions by other democratic legislatures pushing back against Chinese manipulation of international law. In March 2025, G7 foreign ministers issued a statement in Charlevoix, Que., which for the first time omitted any mention of the One-China framework. It stated: “We emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We encouraged the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues and reiterated our opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion. We also expressed support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in appropriate international organizations.”

“The concept of One China, at least in discussions of Taiwan, may have outlived its usefulness,” Simon writes.

Simon concludes that Canada’s longstanding policy of strategic ambiguity may no longer be sufficient in light of rising geopolitical pressures. The report argues that public awareness and parliamentary clarity are now essential as China increases its pressure on democratic partners.

| News Desk