China says that it has official diplomatic relations with 181 countries on the basis of its “one China” principle, but a study published by a National University of Singapore (NUS) academic found that only 51 countries fully comply with Beijing’s definition of “one China.”
As China ups its intimidation of Taiwan, more countries are taking a clearer stance, defining Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation separate from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
In the paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, NUS assistant professor Chong Ja Ian (莊嘉穎) says that many countries use different wording: Forty-one countries “recognize” the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China with no explicit mention of Taiwan’s sovereignty, 16 countries only “take note of” China’s claim, the US and nine other countries “acknowledge” the PRC’s claim, six countries “understand” or “respect” the claim and many others neither recognize the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China nor mention Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Countries use a broad range of official formulations beyond Beijing’s “one China” principle, thus they could have diplomatic relations with the PRC and robust unofficial ties with Taiwan.
However, as China pursues its claim over Taiwan, as well as the South China and East China seas, its expansionist plans and attempts to stand with Russia as an authoritarian partner have pushed democratic countries to clarify their stance on Taiwan, either opposing the “one China” principle or calling for the maintenance of the “status quo” within the geopolitical reality that Taiwan is already an independent, sovereign nation separate from the PRC. Many countries are also in support of Taiwan’s self-determination. US President Joe Biden has said that, although the US’ “one China” policy does not encourage Taiwanese independence, “Taiwan makes their own judgements about their independence... That’s their decision.”
Taipei has changed its position on the “one China” principle to deal with different realities. In the Martial Law era, the Republic of China (ROC) government under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime declared itself the legitimate government of China, including Taiwan. Today, the Democratic Progressive Party government objects to China’s claims over Taiwan, saying that Taiwan is already a sovereign state, so there is no need to declare independence.
However, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in his report at the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th National Congress last year insisted on a stricter “one China” principle and pushing for unification with Taiwan, irrespective of what Taiwanese want.
Chong’s study also says that Beijing pressured Taipei to adopt the so-called “1992 consensus,” but refuses any alternative to its “one China” principle, including the “different interpretations” the KMT has used as the basis for its talks with the PRC.
The KMT last week sent a delegation to meet China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Director Song Tao (宋濤). Song reiterated the importance of implementing Xi’s will and completing China’s strategy to resolve “the Taiwan question”, in line with a white paper released last year aiming for unification with Taiwan. The paper does not rule out the use of military force.
Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), in his memoir published last month, called on Beijing to face up to the existence of the “ROC government,” and said that “only with such political mutual trust can cross-strait dialogue begin.” China criticized him, saying that his emphasis on the ROC was essentially a “two-state theory” implying independence. This should show the KMT that Beijing’s idea of “unification” would mean the end of the ROC.
The idea of “one China” has long been a major cause of antagonism across the Taiwan Strait and rigid diplomatic interactions. However, with more countries realizing Taiwan’s economic and political importance, China’s stranglehold on global diplomacy will hopefully weaken.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is