SOVEREIGNTY and territorial integrity are the bedrock of the international order. For China, no issue is more closely tied to those principles than Taiwan. Beijing’s recent decision to impose countermeasures against two ministers from Paraguay and Belize reflects that reality. According to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their visits to Taiwan, meetings with “Taiwan independence” separatist figures and promotion of allegations regarding Chinese cyberattacks constituted interference in China’s internal affairs and undermined China’s core interests. To understand Beijing’s response, one must look beyond the immediate controversy and examine the historical, legal and diplomatic foundations of China’s Taiwan policy.
For China, Taiwan is first and foremost a question of sovereignty, not diplomacy. Chinese historical records document administrative links between the mainland and Taiwan stretching back centuries. Under the Qing Dynasty, Taiwan became a province in 1885. Beijing maintains that the island’s separation from the mainland resulted from foreign aggression rather than self-determination. Japan acquired Taiwan under the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki after the First Sino-Japanese War.
World War II reshaped the island’s status. The 1943 Cairo Declaration stated that territories seized by Japan from China, including Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China. The 1945 Potsdam Proclamation reaffirmed that commitment and Japan accepted those terms upon surrender. On 25 October 1945, Chinese authorities resumed administration of Taiwan. From Beijing’s perspective, these developments established the legal and historical basis of Chinese sovereignty over the island.
The contemporary dispute emerged from the Chinese Civil War. Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the defeated Kuomintang leadership retreated to Taiwan. Beijing argues that this created a temporary political division but did not alter Taiwan’s status as part of China. Chinese scholars further contend that external intervention, particularly during the Korean War, prevented reunification and transformed a domestic issue into a prolonged international dispute. Consequently, Beijing insists that Taiwan remains an internal matter beyond the scope of foreign interference. The modern framework for China’s position rests on the One-China Principle: there is only one China, Taiwan is an inseparable part of it and the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing China.
A pivotal moment came in 1971 when United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 restored China’s seat at the United Nations to the People’s Republic of China. Since then, the overwhelming majority of countries have established diplomatic relations with Beijing on the basis of the One-China Principle. China therefore sees its position not simply as a national claim but as one anchored in international recognition.
Beijing also points to a series of diplomatic agreements supporting this framework. The 1972 Shanghai Communiqué acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Subsequent Sino-US communiqués in 1979 and 1982 reaffirmed Washington’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and opposition to any formulation of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.” Similar understandings underpin China’s relations with Japan and many other states.
Against this backdrop, Beijing regards official engagement with Taiwan by foreign political figures as highly sensitive. Paraguay and Belize remain among the few countries maintaining official ties with Taiwan rather than Beijing. In China’s view, visits by senior officials and meetings with separatist figures are seen as conferring legitimacy on forces advocating Taiwan’s separation from China and challenging the political foundations of the One-China framework. To compound the dispute, Beijing was accused of supporting cyberattacks, a charge it dismisses as politically motivated disinformation aimed at tarnishing China’s reputation. Chinese officials argue that such allegations, coupled with engagement with pro-independence figures, further challenge China’s core interests and warrant a firm response.
Beijing’s rationale is rooted in deterrence. Chinese policymakers maintain that sovereignty is indivisible and that ambiguity on territorial issues can encourage separatist movements. In their view, failing to respond would invite similar actions elsewhere. Chinese officials contend that no sovereign state would tolerate foreign support for separatist forces within its recognized borders. Seen through that lens, the measures against officials from Paraguay and Belize represent more than a diplomatic protest; they are intended to defend what China regards as a core national interest. For Beijing, Taiwan is inseparable from sovereignty, territorial integrity and national reunification.
A Chinese proverb aptly captures Beijing’s thinking: “When drinking water, remember its source”. The saying underscores the importance of recognizing origins and historical ties. From Beijing’s perspective, Taiwan’s relationship with the mainland is rooted in a shared history that cannot be erased by contemporary political disputes or external pressures. Another Chinese maxim observes that “A jade stone may be shattered, but its integrity remains intact”. The proverb reflects a determination to preserve principle above expediency. In China’s view, questions of sovereignty and territorial integrity belong in that category and cannot be compromised for short-term political convenience.
The underlying message is unmistakable: Taiwan remains China’s most sensitive sovereignty issue and challenges to the One-China Principle will be met with firm and consistent resistance. For China, this is not merely a diplomatic dispute. It is the defence of what it regards as a fundamental national interest and the completion of what many Chinese see as the unfinished task of national reunification. As Chinese leaders frequently emphasize, national rejuvenation and national reunification are closely intertwined goals. Consequently, Beijing’s policy towards Taiwan is unlikely to waver. Regardless of shifting geopolitical currents, the message conveyed through its diplomatic actions remains clear: the Taiwan question is and will remain, China’s non-negotiable red line.
—The writer is a Sinologist.
