The "one China" myth
It seems that some time ago a diplomat developed a simple solution to a complex problem. There were two governments each claiming to be the rightful ruler of China. Between the two, the ROC was at one time considered the legitimate government and then the US changed its mind and acknowl-edged the other government. The PRC became the official government of China. That left open an interesting and gray area -- is Taiwan, the territory still governed by the ROC, part of China?
While official US policy states that the US acknowl-edges that Taiwan is a part of China, the US insists that the issue be resolved peacefully. At the same time, the US discour-ages Taiwan from declaring independence.
This leads us to the issue of the divergence between reality and diplomatic talk. A diplomat may make every argument in the world that there is only one China, but that is like arguing that the sky is yellow. There are two Chinas. Or, more properly, one China, one Taiwan.
By every definition, Taiwan is an independent country. It has its own history, culture, military, government, economy and, unlike China, it is a demo-cracy. But because diplomats hate to make people angry (just ask Hitler), they give in to bullies. Therefore the Beijing bullies have made Taiwan the most isolated democracy in the world. If the US had been able to isolate Iraq as well as the Chinese have done with Taiwan, Saddam Hussein would surely have fallen by now.
Why should China get Tai-wan back? Historical ties are certainly not a factor. Taiwan has never been under the PRC's control; it was under Japanese control from the late 19th century until 1945. Otherwise, Britain could argue that the original 13 colonies are still part of the UK.
In reality, the US does treat Taiwan as a separate country. Several things show this. The US sells weapons to Taiwan based on the Taiwan Relations Act. Then there are the visas; Taiwanese have a much easier time getting visas than do the Chinese. Why? Taiwan is more developed. The Taiwanese, unlike the Chinese, are more likely to return and not overstay their visas. Regardless of what the US diplomats say, reality is another matter.
This brings us to the hypocrisy of the US. During the Cold War, the US did not say that West Germany and East Germany were Germany and there was only "one Germany." Taiwan and China were divided for similar reasons as East and West Germany, communist and non-communist.
China is only a bully today because US diplomats do not have the courage to stand up to them. US businesspeople have illusions about fortunes to be earned in China.
It is appalling that we are so hypocritical as to tell a democracy that they can not be free from a country known for its lack of human rights and its military ambitions. Writers of the Declaration of Independence would be appalled, as they decided freedom was important enough for them to take on a superpower.
I implore the American people to end the hypocrisy of "one China" and replace it with "one China, one Taiwan." Could this lead to war? Of course. Freedom is never free.
To quote US president Franklin Roosevelt, "We, and all others who believe in freedom as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."
Are we to believe we were willing to defend Western Europe's freedom at any cost yet turn our back on Asia? The only way to prevent aggression is to counter it before it acts.
If we declare Taiwan free, and make a treaty with it before China can react, it would be better than waiting for Beijing to attack first before being forced into a major war. If China gets Taiwan back, the US will lose a reliable ally in Asia and China will have replaced the US in Asia.
So I say, "one China, one Taiwan." Let us speak what the reality is. And if the people of Taiwan eventually want to reunite into a "one China," that is for them to decide.
Stephen Marler
Oviedo, Florida
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS