There is no doubt that US-China relations are tense, as — under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — the communist government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is increasing its political, economic and military pressure on democratically governed Taiwan. Somehow the existence of a free and vibrant democracy on its doorstep is a thorn in the thigh of the undemocratic rulers in Beijing.
So there is no doubt that Beijing is the problem. And this problem could easily be resolved if the leaders in Beijing would accept Taiwan as a friendly neighbor, and strive toward peaceful coexistence, but somehow the PRC’s distorted version of history gets in the way.
It bases its claims on the argument that “Taiwan has been part of China since the Ming and Qing dynasties.” That simply was not the case: It was never part of the Ming Dynasty, while the Qing Dynasty was considered a foreign colonial regime by the islanders, which prompted “an uprising every three years and a revolution every five years.”
The regime in Beijing negates the fact that Taiwan has its own history and culture — including a rich indigenous culture — and perceives relations with the island almost exclusively through the dark lens of its civil war against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which lasted from 1926 through 1949.
This civil war between the Chinese communists of Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and the Nationalists of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) was fought on the mainland, but Taiwan and its future became unwilling pawns in their civil war when the US allowed Chiang and his Nationalists to occupy Taiwan after the end of World War II.
And there begins the first major misconception that one sees in international media, which all too often write that “after a civil war, Taiwan split off from China in 1949.” Taiwan never “split off” from anything, but was occupied by the losing side in the Chinese Civil War which — as it was a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945 — it had no part in it.
During the next three to four decades, the Chinese Nationalists occupying Taiwan continued their claim to rule China. This claim increasingly lost credibility, and in the 1970s most countries — including the US — recognized the government in Beijing as the legitimate government of China.
This was a choice between two governments claiming to represent China. The West recognized only one government, thus the “one China policy” was born. And this leads to the second misconception one often finds in international media: That “one China policy” means that the West recognizes Taiwan as part of China.
This is simply not the case either: When they recognized Beijing as the government of China, virtually all Western countries took the position that Taiwan’s status was undetermined, and — in accordance with the provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951-1952 — needed to be determined peacefully, taking the views of the Taiwanese people into account.
Many countries used language such as “take note of,” “acknowledge” or “respect” the position of the PRC government regarding Taiwan’s status, but as any self-respecting diplomat knows, these are terms used in diplomacy to politely say one disagrees with the other’s position.
A third misperception is that too many media wittingly or unwittingly copy the “reunification” language used by the PRC. Since its founding in 1949, the PRC never had any control or sovereignty over Taiwan in the first place, so a “re”-unification is a misnomer at best.
Thus, the international media would bring more balance to their reporting if they included language highlighting Taiwan’s own history, culture and existence separate from China. Certainly, “splitting off from China in 1949” and “reunification” are no-noes that need to be avoided.
Regarding “one China,” it is essential to make the crucial distinction between the PRC’s insistence on its “one China principle” (Taiwan has “always” been part of China — simply false), and the “one China policy” phrasing used by virtually all Western countries, which leaves considerable leeway in their position on Taiwan’s status.
In any case, under the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Taiwan is a nation-state, as it meets the qualifications of defined territory, stable population and a government capable of entering into relations with other states. The convention even states that “the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.”
Circling back to the beginning of this article: Yes, through its aggressive behavior, the PRC is causing tensions across the Taiwan Strait, but it is essential that the international media get some of these basic facts straight.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat who served as publisher of Taiwan Communique from 1980 through 2016. He now teaches the history of Taiwan at George Mason University, and US relations with East Asia at the George Washington University Elliott School for International Affairs.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS