In today’s world, there are many examples of states that possess their own territory, institutions, governments, and people, yet still struggle to gain recognition from the international community. Taiwan, Afghanistan, and Somaliland are three different examples that raise an important question: does limiting international recognition help achieve political goals, or does it merely create more difficulties for the people affected to no real purpose?

Imagine being asked to prove where you come from, only to discover that the answer is more complicated than the name of your country. Imagine living in a territory that has governed itself for decades, yet whose claim to statehood remains largely unrecognized. International recognition is rarely determined solely by legal conditions; in almost all cases, political interests play the most significant role, without regard for the consequences these decisions may have on the coutry concerned or its citizens, even in their daily lives. From Taiwan, a country with a controversial history of state recognition, to the Taliban government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan that controls even its women’s teaching rights yet seemingly aspires to international recognition, to Somaliland, a de facto state for decades but with no official recognition yet. Each case reflects a different legal and political situation, but all invite us to examine how recognition or its absence shapes international cooperation, representation, and access.  

Taiwan

Taiwan has limited formal diplomatic recognition. As of October 2026, only 12 countries maintain official diplomatic relations with the country. Those being: Belize, Guatemala, Paraguay, Haiti, Saint ​Kitts and Nevis, Saint ​Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Eswatini, and the Vatican ​City.

Taiwan’s story is long and complex. For many years, the country has had its own government, institutions, and international connections. However, its limited formal diplomatic recognition and exclusion from most international forums raise questions about its position in the international community. Taiwan is a high-tech economy that has also made headway in addressing climate change. In 2023, its government amended the Climate Change Response Act, establishing a legal commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, tightening emissions controls, and introducing a carbon-fee system. Taiwan wants to be part of the global effort to fight climate change. But its international position creates an important contradiction. Although climate change is a transnational issue that needs international cooperation, Taiwan is not a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and therefore cannot participate as a party in the formal negotiations at the Conference of the Parties (COP). Countries do not recognize Taiwan because of the position taken by the People’s Republic of China with the One China policy, which is against recognizing Taiwan as an independent country. This stance has had a profound influence on the diplomatic behavior of other countries, especially the United States. In 1979, the U.S. ended formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan to establish formal diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, while merely maintaining informal ties with Taiwan. 

Afghanistan

The situation in Afghanistan is different from that in Taiwan. Afghanistan is a member of the United Nations, in theory but not in practice.  The UN has not acknowledged the current government as the country’s representative since it took over in August 2021. The difference is important. Afghanistan is a state, but with the exception of Russia, the government of Afghanistan is not recognized internationally. All governments except Russia have refused to recognize the Taliban government, citing its hardline policies, especially those related to women and minorities. While these states may, in some respects, be justified in withholding recognition, most pay little attention to the suffering of the Afghan people, both within the country and abroad. Domestically, the Taliban’s policies have led to the freezing of significant funds held overseas, resources that could otherwise support development projects, alleviate the extreme poverty in which most of the population lives, and create employment opportunities essential for their daily survival, which grows increasingly difficult. For Afghans living abroad, the situation is much the same; all Western countries have severed diplomatic ties with the Government of Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s embassy in Washington and its two consulates in the United States ceased operations in March 2022, creating numerous challenges for Afghan citizens that affect even their daily lives. Many European nations have kept their embassies partially operational, retaining staff from the previous administration. These developments have complicated the question of who represents Afghanistan internationally and how its citizens can access diplomatic services. Russia stands alone in having extended recognition to the Afghan government, a move that took place in 2025. Other countries, such as China, have contributed and continue to contribute to various projects within Afghanistan, yet they still did not recognize the Taliban’s administration. A genuine question arises here that cannot be ignored: has the current state of the Taliban government’s relationship with the rest of the world contributed to their regression on various issues such as the right of women to education and the rights of minorities? Has it led to even more hardline policies? Isolation has neither secured the reforms demanded by foreign governments nor prevented other countries from engaging with Kabul. A deeper and broader examination of this issue by all parties involved could prompt many states to reconsider their perspectives, potentially leading, in one way or another, to an improvement in the daily lives of the Afghan people, both within the country and overseas. Disputed seats go to the General Assembly’s nine-member Credentials Committee. The committee and General Assembly usually operate by consensus on credentials. Every year since 2021, the committee has postponed a decision instead of voting. This happened on 1 December 2021, 16 December 2022 and 6 December 2023, and again on 25 November 2025. While the decision is deferred, the seat stays with a diplomat appointed by the previous Afghan government. The General Assembly removed Afghanistan’s voting rights in 2024. The behaviour of the United Nations as an organisation is indefensible.

Somaliland

Somaliland is often viewed as an example of stability and hope, earning praise for its innovative, hybrid political system, relatively democratic elections, strong internal legitimacy, and absence of violence. Somaliland also possesses a government and a clearly defined governance structure that relies heavily on community leadership, and its constitution stipulates the principle of the separation of government powers. As a result, Somaliland has gained internal legitimacy through decades of political stability and political participation. However, it continues to seek international legitimacy. By contrast, Somalia, from which Somaliland declared its independence in 1990, enjoys external legitimacy but lacks internal legitimacy. On December 26, 2025, a major development occurred when Israel officially recognized Somaliland as an independent state, becoming the first and only nation to take such a step. However, this decision did not put an end to the broader debate surrounding the recognition of Somaliland; the African Union remains committed to the principle of Somalia’s territorial integrity and does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state. Consequently, Israel’s decision raises a wider question: should international recognition be based primarily on existing international borders, or should it also take into consideration a political entity’s history of self-governance, as well as its internal stability and legitimacy?

Beyond Recognition: The Human Cost of Political Exclusion

Perhaps Taiwan deserves more recognition from the international community and fewer restrictions for its role in technology and climate change.

Perhaps recognition for Afghanistan should go hand in hand with improvements in women’s rights, minority rights, and human rights.

Given its long history of self-governance, Somaliland should have been given the freedom to choose its own destiny, since any potential for encouraging other separatist movements should have been considered irrelevant decades ago.

However, the examples of Taiwan, Afghanistan, and Somaliland demonstrate that international recognition is not merely a question of diplomatic relations or legal status. It can impact a country’s prospects for international cooperation, economic development, and even the lives of its citizens. Each case is different, but they all raise the same concerns. Human rights, territorial integrity, and political legitimacy cannot be ignored, but the international community should also consider whether its current approach to recognition is meeting its intended goals or creating further difficulties for the people affected.

Finally, I would like to say to my friend from Taiwan, my colleague from Afghanistan, and my friend from Somaliland, whom I have yet to meet, that you are wonderful and your lives matter. The passport you hold does not define who you are; the recognition of your country’s borders by other nations does not determine your worth as a human being. Governments may disagree over territory, sovereignty, and political legitimacy, but ordinary people should not have to bear the consequences of these disputes without consideration for their rights and well-being. Ultimately, recognition may determine how states are treated by the international community, but it should never determine the value of the people who live there.