Breaking Free from Beijing’s Fiction to Restore the Republic of China’s Global Standing
1. A Fabricated Consensus and the Reality of Division
The “One China Policy” was a strategically ambiguous framework adopted by the United States in the 1970s to balance relations with the Republic of China (ROC) while making limited concessions to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) during diplomatic normalization. The U.S. has never formally endorsed Beijing’s “One China Principle,” merely “acknowledging” its position—a critical distinction from “recognizing” the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China.
For five decades, Beijing, driven by domestic stability and global influence, has unilaterally framed the One China Policy as international acceptance of its sole legitimacy, sidelining the ROC’s existence. This manipulation has turned a diplomatic tool into a mechanism of diplomatic hegemony, restricting the ROC’s global role. Today, this policy no longer serves reality or global stability and must be confronted.
2. Two Chinas: A Fact Rooted in History
The world already has “two Chinas“: the ROC, though no longer governing the mainland, has never been legally replaced or extinguished, maintaining its people, government, territory, and symbols of sovereignty. The PRC, since 1949, has exercised de facto control over the mainland. Both entities possess independent constitutional systems, diplomatic institutions, and defense forces, functioning as coexisting political entities.
Historically, the ROC was the founding entity of China in the international system, securing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The 1971 UN Resolution 2758 expelled “Chiang Kai-shek’s representatives” but did not legally terminate the ROC’s existence or address issues beyond China’s representation. This legal foundation supports restoring the ROC’s global standing as a legitimate free China.
The ROC is not a historical burden unique to Taiwan but a shared asset for the global Chinese community. It embodies the legal foundation of modern China, carrying the republican spirit of the 1911 Revolution, the sovereignty established through the Northern Expedition, and the international stature gained from victory in World War II. Dismissing the ROC severs a century of political continuity and surrenders a key resource for challenging the PRC’s legitimacy narrative.
The PRC’s relentless efforts to erase the ROC’s symbols and memory stem from insecurity. The ROC’s existence inherently undermines Beijing’s claim to be the sole representative of China. As long as the ROC endures, Beijing’s diplomatic hegemony remains incomplete.
Reaffirming the ROC strengthens Taiwan’s international position and offers the Chinese-speaking world, which values its cultural heritage and democratic order, a legitimate free China. Rooted in Taiwan’s constitutional democracy (reformed since the 1990s) and multicultural society (blending Hoklo, Hakka, and Indigenous cultures), the ROC is a vibrant symbol of unity, ready to reclaim its global standing.
4. Mainland Chinese Recognition and Aspirations for the ROC
Despite the PRC’s information controls and suppression of dissent, positive sentiments toward the ROC’s history and system persist on the mainland. Discussions on social media platforms like Weibo, particularly around the 1911 Revolution and World War II, reveal admiration for the ROC as a legitimate free China. Its democratic elections (direct presidential elections since 1996, with an 80% voter turnout in 2024) and press freedom (scoring 94/100 in Freedom House’s 2024 report) represent a governance model beyond authoritarian control.
Recognizing the ROC is not only a strategic move but also a response to the mainland’s historical memory and cultural identity. For many mainlanders, the ROC is not a distant past but a potential model for democratic governance. Restoring the ROC’s global standing counters Beijing’s narrative and amplifies its appeal across the Chinese-speaking world.
5. Conservative Diplomacy Must Honor History and Reality
A robust conservative foreign policy should be grounded in history and reality, not ideological compromises. The Trump-era U.S. foreign policy, prioritizing national interest and geopolitical pragmatism, rejects outdated frameworks.
The One China Policy constrains U.S. policy flexibility toward China. While the Trump administration did not explicitly abandon it, actions like high-level engagements with the ROC, arms sales, and the Taiwan Travel Act (passed in 2018) signaled a shift. The move from “Made in China” to “Made in PRC” on product labels reflects U.S. efforts to distinguish the PRC from a broader “China.” Ending the One China Policy aligns with this realist approach, confronting Beijing’s diplomatic hegemony and paving the way for the ROC’s recognition.
6. ROC Recognition and the Erosion of PRC Legitimacy
International recognition of the ROC’s existence and historical status would directly challenge the PRC’s narrative of being the sole representative of China. Far from creating problems, this would create a flexible framework for long-term stability on the China issue. Beijing’s One China Principle restricts the global order, preventing nations from addressing its aggressive actions.
If the ROC, as a legitimate free China, is recognized, its constitutional framework and historical legitimacy would serve as a natural barrier to PRC expansionism. This would provide the international community with a credible, democratic Chinese partner, supporting the restructuring and stabilization of East Asian order.
Risks and Mitigation: Recognizing the ROC may trigger PRC economic sanctions (e.g., export restrictions in 2023) or military tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan can mitigate these risks through strategic alliances with the U.S., Japan, and Australia (e.g., via the AUKUS framework) and economic diversification (with 35% of exports to the U.S. in 2024).
7. Sovereignty Must Be Clear, Facts Cannot Be Ignored
Sovereignty is inherently exclusive. Concepts like “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China” or “China is yet to be unified” are legally ambiguous and contradictory, enabling the PRC to exert unchecked pressure on Taiwan. Maintaining ambiguity fuels expansionism and strategic adventurism, not peace.
Acknowledging the coexistence of two Chinas is a prerequisite for a stable East Asian order. Only when nations face facts and make clear choices can they counter the PRC’s infiltration and coercion through the One China Principle.
8. Conclusion: Time to End Fiction and Embrace Reality
The One China Policy, once a Cold War-era compromise for U.S.-PRC normalization and cross-strait stability, has become a diplomatic trap. It enables Beijing to manipulate global narratives and restrict other nations’ sovereignty. By enforcing its One China Principle, the PRC demands compliance with its unilateral definition of legitimacy, undermining global flexibility in addressing China.
Past ambiguity has bred institutional contradictions; past compromises have betrayed both values and reality. Clinging to the One China Policy strengthens Beijing’s diplomatic hegemony. If nations remain bound by this framework, they will struggle to adopt an autonomous and honest stance on China.
To honor history, confront reality, and uphold a diverse and stable global order, recognizing the Republic of China as a legitimate free China and ending the One China Policy’s fiction is an urgent necessity. By confronting Beijing’s diplomatic hegemony, the world can restore the ROC’s rightful place on the global stage.
