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.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS