There is but one China, and it includes Taiwan

Taiwan has no more right to declare independence or maintain a separate status from mainland China than would Texas from the US. EPA

Relations between China and Japan are being severely tested after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi suggested her country could become militarily involved if Beijing attempted reunification with Taiwan by force. The two countries summoned each other’s ambassadors, and 500,000 airline tickets were cancelled after China advised its citizens against travelling to Japan.

All imports of Japanese seafood to China are being banned, and the release of two Japanese anime films in China has also been suspended. Chinese state media have called Ms Takaichi’s words “dangerously provocative”. Various Chinese officials have said, as has President Xi Jinping before, that the reunification of China with what it views as the renegade province of Taiwan is “inevitable”.

There was a time when I might have differed from this view. But not now. And it is high time that other countries, mainly in the western orbit, accept once and for all the historical and legal facts: there is but one China, and Taiwan is a part of it.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi pictured in South Korea on October 31. The issue of Taiwan has strained relations between the two countries. AP

I understand the sympathy for Taiwan in the US and Europe. Supporters there see today an island that looks at least partly in their image: a democracy with liberal and progressive values. But the notion that their support for the island’s continued separation – or even official independence – is underpinned by a consistent, justifiable principle falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, let alone even the smallest attempt to try to see China’s point of view.

It is Taiwan’s system of governance that means it deserves the West’s support, some say. What then to make of the 38 years from 1949 to 1987 when the island was under martial law, the period known as “the white terror”? That was clearly not the reason the US, in particular, worked so closely with Taiwan. So that argument fails.

Still, I accept that plenty feel that they should stand up for a separate Taiwan. The problem with feelings is that they hit a hard wall when they come up against the law. I may feel, for instance, that the island of Ireland should be reunited. But it would be quite wrong for that to happen – and would never happen – without a proper legal and constitutional process. And Taiwan has no more right to declare independence or maintain a separate status from mainland China than would Texas from the US.

Plenty of people feel that they should stand up for a separate Taiwan. The problem with feelings is that they hit a hard wall when they come up against the law

Talk of independence is, in any case, a bit of a red herring. True, the current Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te may have stated “we are an independent country” at a rally in June, but he is something of an outlier. Polls have consistently shown that over 80 per cent of Taiwanese prefer maintaining the status quo. They know that an official declaration of independence would be a red line for Beijing.

Neither was it on the minds of Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) forces, when they retreated to Taiwan in 1949 after losing the civil war to the Chinese Communist Party. Far from thinking they had relocated to a different country, they maintained the fiction that they were the official government of the whole country for decades, which is why Taiwan still calls itself the Republic of China. Both sides accepted that there was just one China. This was reaffirmed in the so-called “1992 consensus”, which finessed the differences by acknowledging that both sides meant something different by the term.

The KMT continues to keep to that. Taiwan’s former President Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT, who was in office 2008-16, said he advocates for "peaceful and democratic unification" during his recent visit to China, also in June. Most countries around the world also recognise some form of the One China formulation.

So it would be fair to say that separation is not widely regarded as a natural state of affairs. Only a tiny minority argue that Taiwan has any legal base for separation, and on pretty spurious grounds. Few propose that when a country has a major constitutional change – in this case the Republic of China (established 1912) being succeeded by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 – provinces or states have any right to opt out. This is what is implied, though, when it is said that Taiwan has never been governed by the PRC. It’s like saying that Northern Ireland has never been ruled by the Republic of Ireland – true, but utterly irrelevant.

In which case reunification is surely a legal requirement, and therefore “inevitable”, as Chinese officials say.

One can see why the US in particular finds Taiwan’s separation useful. It was called the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" by US General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War, and the America is heavily reliant on the island for crucial semiconductors. But what is the point of principle behind stunts such as the then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi landing in Taiwan in 2022 and declaring the United Nations' "unwavering commitment to supporting Taiwan's vibrant democracy”? Because as we have seen, historically support for the island’s separation had nothing to do with democracy.

A photo from 1950 shows Gen Sun Li-Jen inspecting training at a target range in Taiwan. Only a tiny minority argue that Taiwan has any legal base for separation from the rest of China. Bettman Archive

The obvious answer is that the backing was for an anti-Communist regime during the Cold War. That ended in 1991, however, and fears of the “domino effect” or of possible Chinese aggression have to contend with the fact that the number of countries China has invaded since 1979 is precisely zero, whereas the equivalent figure for the US is disputed only because there have been so many American invasions, interventions and bombings.

Some bring up the question of consent. Indeed. When did the Chinese people give their consent to separation for Taiwan?

The analogy isn’t perfect, but it reminds me of a family I know whose patriarch inherited a royal title because the rightful heir was too young to execute the accompanying responsibilities. After living to a ripe old age, the patriarch was succeeded by the same rightful heir. The patriarch’s family was upset – they’d got used to living in a certain manner. But that had been theirs only by accident of circumstance, not by right. Taiwan’s long separation was similarly due to extraordinary circumstance; it was not the island’s by right.

Whether one likes the system of government in Beijing is neither here nor there. There is no legal basis for Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland not to take place. Countries that preach adherence to the rule of law and the importance of territorial integrity should remember this the next time they’re tempted to say something about Taiwan. And chances are, if they examine their official policy they’ll probably find they are signed up to the “one China” principle in any case.