SVG
Commentary
The Washington Times

A War Built on Fiction: China’s Baseless Claim over Taiwan

Washington has never acknowledged China’s “one-China principle.”

miles_yu
miles_yu
Senior Fellow and Director, China Center
A man walks past a hoisted Taiwanese flag at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei on October 15, 2024. (I-Hwa Cheng/AFP via Getty Images)
Caption
A man walks past a hoisted Taiwanese flag at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei on October 15, 2024. (I-Hwa Cheng/AFP via Getty Images)

For decades, the Chinese Communist Party has pushed the tired claim that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China and that the U.S. has somehow pledged to endorse this fantasy. But this argument falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. It has no real historical, legal, or factual legitimacy.

The CCP’s justification for its aggression toward Taiwan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors — held up by brute force, propaganda and diplomatic intimidation.

Despite Beijing’s constant drumbeat about Taiwan being a “renegade province,” the truth is simple: The People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan. Not for a single day.

Since 1949, Taiwan has operated under the governance of the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan. The CCP has never controlled its land, its people or its institutions.

And the so-called “Taiwan independence movement” that Beijing rails against? It’s a bogeyman created to justify its own expansionist ambitions.

Taiwan’s government — across all political lines — has consistently upheld that Taiwan is a fully functioning, self-governing, democratic nation. Taipei doesn’t need to declare independence because it already is an independent state: the Republic of China in Taiwan. With an elected leadership, a thriving economy and a military that will defend its sovereignty, Taiwan is a nation in every meaningful sense, no matter how much Beijing fumes about it.

The CCP likes to claim that Washington supports its “One-China Principle” through what are known as “The Three Communiques.” But that’s just not true. Washington has only ever acknowledged that China makes this claim — it has never agreed with it.

The U.S. position remains firmly rooted in the Taiwan Relations Act and “Six Assurances” given to Taipei, which explicitly reject any recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. These policies also affirm America’s commitment to Taiwan’s defense.

The message is clear: Taiwan’s future must be determined peacefully, through mutual agreement, and without coercion. If China tries to take Taiwan by force, it will be violating international norms and threatening global stability.

To justify its claim, Beijing plays fast and loose with history, pointing to past Chinese dynasties as proof that Taiwan belongs to China. But history doesn’t work that way.

Taiwan’s past rulers have included the Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, and, at times, certain Chinese regimes. If ancient history were the standard for sovereignty, China would have to answer for its own long periods of foreign rule by the Mongols and Manchus.

The modern world defines sovereignty based on international law and self-determination — not cherry-picked historical claims. And Taiwan’s 23 million citizens have made their stance abundantly clear: They reject CCP rule.

Beijing also contends that its pursuit of Taiwan is about protecting China’s territorial integrity, but its own actions betray this claim. Since 1949, China has voluntarily ceded vast swaths of land to other ideologically aligned nations, including communist Russia and Mongolia, without making a fuss.

If territorial unity were really the goal, why didn’t China fight for those lands? The truth is, the CCP’s Taiwan obsession isn’t about sovereignty.

China’s own diplomatic history is riddled with contradictions. It refuses to acknowledge “One China, One Taiwan,” yet it had no problem recognizing both East and West Germany. It ignored its impoverished ally North Korea to recognize South Korea in 1992. These inconsistencies reveal the CCP’s foreign policy for what it is: sheer opportunism.

At its core, China’s aggression toward Taiwan isn’t about national unity — it’s about undermining the U.S. and the global democratic order. The CCP views itself as locked in an ideological battle with the free world, with America as its main adversary. Taiwan, a thriving democracy, a crucial player in global commerce and tech revolution, and a key U.S. partner, stands as a direct challenge to Beijing’s authoritarian model. That’s why the CCP is so determined to bring it under control.

Time and again, the CCP has deliberately escalated tensions in the Taiwan Strait to pressure the U.S. and boost its own global influence.

From the artillery bombardments of Taiwan-controlled islands in the 1950s to the 1995-96 missile crisis and today’s near-daily military provocations, China has repeatedly tested Washington’s resolve. Each crisis has had the same goal: to undermine U.S. credibility and weaken its commitment to Taiwan and the broader democratic order in Asia.

Today, China is still playing the same game — using military intimidation to push the U.S. into a weaker negotiating position. By ramping up tensions around Taiwan, China hopes to coerce Washington into backing off its support for Taipei and, in turn, weakening its global leadership.

But there’s another more calculated motive: Taiwan’s world-leading semiconductor industry. Taiwan is home to giants like TSMC, which dominates high-end microchip production — an industry the entire global economy depends on. If China seizes control of Taiwan, it wouldn’t just be a blow to democracy. It would give Beijing a stranglehold over a critical technology sector, accelerating its march toward global dominance.

China’s aggression isn’t about preserving national unity — it’s about stopping an alternative Chinese identity from thriving beyond the CCP’s control.

Taiwan is living proof that a Chinese society can be free, prosperous, and democratic without the CCP’s iron grip. That’s why Taiwan matters—not just to its own people but to the world.

Read in The Washington Times.