It seems that Beijing can never get tired of talking about its “one China” principle. For years, it has been going on about “one China” with an almost religious intensity and requiring other countries to do the same, as if there were someone out there secretly planning to overthrow it by founding a second or third China.
Such a plan is unheard of anywhere in the world.
If the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had the guts, it would have declared itself the ruler of a second China when it fled to Taiwan 70 years ago; instead, it has allowed itself to be bogged down in the “one China” swamp.
Unable to extract itself, it has come up with its policy of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” of what “China” means — a policy that makes no sense because it was designed to cover up the KMT’s embarrassing defeat and is viewed as an international joke because the KMT does not even dare bring it up around Beijing. With that invention, no challenge or threat remained to the “one China” principle, and Beijing instead grew bold and began to use it to threaten other countries.
Why is Beijing so hysterically obsessed with its “one China” principle? Is it all based on imagined fear?
Definitely not. It must never be forgotten that every time the phrase “one China” is mentioned, the unmentioned second half of that statement is that “Taiwan is a part of China,” and that is what Beijing really wants to say. Behind the “one China” principle that almost no one rejects lies Beijing’s intention to deprive Taiwanese of their right to express their will and to decide their own future through democratic means.
Many countries, including the US, Japan, France and the UK, have seen through Beijing’s scheme. While they may pay lip service to “one China,” they openly refuse to accept the second part and treat Taiwan as a part of China. On the other hand, many smaller nations, out of fear for Beijing, have silently adopted its position and treat Taiwan as if it were part of China. For them, what happens to the Taiwanese is the least of their concerns.
US President Donald Trump has questioned why his country has to be bound by the “one China” policy for Beijing to be willing to make a deal regarding trade or monetary policies.
The remarks riled and panicked Beijing, as they hit the nail on the head.
However, Taiwanese must not start celebrating yet; what will they do if the US cancels its “one China” policy? Will they be able to found a second or even a third China? That is clearly impossible, as it would put the US in an awkward position.
Moreover, Trump’s remarks imply that the US could accept the “one China” policy if Beijing were willing to negotiate. What if China did decide to enter into negotiations with the US and the US continued to accept Beijing’s “one China” principle? What would happen to the second half of the statement then?
Taiwanese should always try to rely on themselves, especially when it comes to saving their own country. It does not matter how many Chinas there are. The only thing that matters is Taiwan is not ruled by China. The idea that Taiwan is part of China must be completely eradicated. Every time Beijing claims that Taiwan is part of China, Taiwanese should make it doubly clear to the world that it is not.
Peng Ming-min is a former presidential adviser.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US