G7 is wrong: threat to Taiwan peace is not reunification but secession

China will reunite with Taiwan; whether peacefully or militarily, this is its own legitimate business

Xu Xiaobing

Published: 9:30am, 31 Dec 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

The latest G7 leaders’ statement, released on December 6, called again for a “peaceful resolution” of issues across the Taiwan Strait while claiming no change in their “one China policies”.

This statement is hypocritical, mendacious and deceptive at best, and dangerous at worst. It is hypocritical to call for a peaceful resolution without giving due respect to China’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and internal affairs.

The sovereignty, territorial integrity and internal affairs of a state are enshrined in the UN Charter as the fundamental principles of international law. Any sovereign state’s reunification or fight against secession, whether through peaceful or non-peaceful means, is therefore its legitimate right and within its internal affairs. It is not a threat to peace.

It is secession that is a threat to peace, as it constitutes a gross violation of both national and international laws.

While China favours and strives for peaceful reunification, it will not hesitate to employ non-peaceful means to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity, according to its Anti-Secession Law, should Taiwan’s secession occur or the possibilities for a peaceful reunification be completely exhausted.

The G7 statement is mendacious as it intentionally distorts the history and nature of cross-strait relations.

Since 1949, when the government of the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan, the civil war between the nationalists and communists – who first fought from 1927-1937, and then from 1945-1949 – has never officially concluded.

Early attempts to resume that war, whether in the People’s Republic of China trying to liberate Taiwan or by the Republic of China counter-attacking the mainland, were all efforts to reunify the country.

The 1958 Jinmen bombardment, in particular, has since been deemed a war of “tacit understanding” between the two sides to prevent the US from creating two Chinas. If there is to be a cross-strait war in the future, it must be one for reunification.

The G7 statement is most deceptive in advertising no change in the “one China policies” of the members of the grouping. It is an undeniable fact that the “one China policy” in the US context differs materially from the one-China principle based on the three communiques signed between China and the US over 1972-1982.

04:00

PLA will show ‘no mercy’ against Taiwan independence moves, top Chinese general says

The US argues that in the 1972 Shanghai communique, it only acknowledged that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China”, indicating disagreement and no commitment.

But the 1978 communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations states the US not only recognises “the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China” but also acknowledgesthe Chinese position that “there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”.

This, as a whole, constitutes the one-China principle. A normal interpretation of “acknowledge” here, in both languages, points to an unabridged one-China principle commitment on the part of the US.

The Taiwan question is for Beijing – not the US – to resolve

The 1982 communique further strengthened that commitment by reaffirming it from the outset and reiterating that the US “has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’”.

It is no accident that the late centenarian Henry Kissinger, icebreaker of China-US relations, previously urged Washington not to “develop something of a ‘two China’ solution”, whether “by subterfuge or by a gradual process”.

Yet Washington has shrugged off his advice amid strained relations with Beijing, insisting instead that its one-China policy is also based on the Taiwan Relations Act and Six Assurances, treating Taiwan as if it were an independent state, obliging the US to continue to provide the means of self-defence to Taiwan, and requesting that any reunification, if any, must be peaceful.

05:27

Taiwan election exposes generational rift over potential reunification with mainland China

The US’ behaviour not only contravenes its international obligation not to invoke internal law as a justification for its failure to meet its international commitments, but is also at odds with the overwhelming international support for the one-China principle.

For example, it is uncertain how the Taiwan International Solidarity Act passed by the US House of Representatives, which aims to misinterpret and offset the 1971 UN resolution recognising the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations”, would affect the firm multilateral commitment to the one-China principle. The vast majority of the 182 states with diplomatic relations with China have no problems steadfastly upholding their commitment to the one-China principle.

The disagreement between a “one China policy” and the “one-China principle” sheds much light on the terminology battle between an “international rules-based order” and the international law-based order. China has good reasons to neither recognise nor acknowledge an international rules-based order.

Finally and importantly, the G7 statement is dangerous in putting the means before the ends, and sending out the wrong signal.

03:50

Mainland China white paper declares ‘greatest sincerity’ for peaceful reunification with Taiwan

More than four decades after China formally announced its peaceful reunification policy in 1979, such hopes are drifting away. It is not that Beijing has stopped pursuing peaceful reunification. It is that Taipei has been making menacing moves towards secession through salami-slicing tactics under the Democratic Progressive Party government.

Remember, a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues may be the ideal but it is only the means to the goal of reunification. There are alternatives to the peaceful means – but none to reunification.

As Tesla founder Elon Musk has pointed out, China’s official policy is to reunite with Taiwan – peacefully or militarily. One does not need to read between the lines: just read them. Reunification is inevitable.

Taiwanese independence would spell the end of peace. The G7 statement is whitewashing in vain.

Xu Xiaobing is director of the Centre of International Law Practice at Shanghai Jiao Tong University Law School