.png)
One China Policy is the diplomatic acknowledgement of China's position that there exists only one Chinese government, that is, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with no consideration of the Republic of China (ROC) as a separate sovereign entity. The foreign ministry spokesperson of the People's Republic of China frequently reiterates that the country’s One China policy is a global agreement among nations and a fundamental canon of international relations, recognised by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution of 1971, and subsequently asks countries not to deviate from its commitment towards the same.
The perceived hypocritical stand of China in context to following its ‘One China’ policy is quite a proof in its prioritised sovereignty claims, duality in human rights stance, economic pragmatism, and tactful use of geopolitical pressure.
The conduct of the dragon, with special reference to Taiwan and Tibet, shows a clear picture of how it selectively practices its ownership norms which benefit its border interests regardless of contradicting its own One China Policy.
China has consistently redefined its One China policy in the past ten years. This has been done through the use of economic measures such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) from 2013 to induce reliance on them as well as coercing nations to change their recognition of Taiwan from Taipei to Beijing.
Additionally, China has continued diplomatic isolation of Taiwan, barred it from international forums, and embedded economic sanctions and inducements that force others into compliance with its own position. Similarly, an increased level of military activity surrounding Taiwan coupled with militarisation of the South China Sea points out a readiness by China to put forward territorial claims thereupon.
On the home front, it passed Hong Kong’s National Security Law and changed some statutes that would legitimize any future action against Taiwan.
To further enforce China’s One China policy while expanding its geopolitical influence, there have been heightened propaganda activities combined with cyber operations; closer ties with Russia as well as non-Western countries and pushing multinational corporations towards conformity with its internal policy.
SELECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY CLAIMS
China continues to stay unaltered in its hegemonic claim over Taiwan and Tibet. On the contrary, it defends the Separatist Movement outside China when it yields a better position, as it supported South Sudan’s liberation from Sudan. Such an act of territorial autonomy and no interference in domestic politics is debatable, pertaining to Beijing’s conduct as per its convenience.
This hypocrisy is glaringly obvious: China commands acknowledgement for its territorial claims only when it satisfies its geopolitics while violating the sovereignty of other nations.
HUMAN RIGHTS’ DUAL STANCE
Having to acknowledge, the dragon adopts a double standard stance on human rights. Beijing voices itself as an ally of human rights, at the same time maneuvering with the US on matters of racism and police brutality. Nevertheless, it always overlooks the questions being raised in its own advocacy of human rights, particularly in the regions of Tibet and Xinjiang.
The Chinese President upholds human rights protection but the severe harassment of Uyghurs, which ended up with mass layoffs and labor exploitation besides the planned disappearance of Tibetan culture and spiritual traditions, opposes it tremendously.
ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM VS POLITICAL RHETORIC
China often counters its economic pragmatism with politically rhetorical statements about the One China Policy. Beijing practices a hardline political stance that Taiwan is a breakaway province despite its considerable negotiations with the island, becoming one of the largest business partners of Taiwan.
This intricate relationship between both economies exposes the economic strategy of China which stands in contrast to its political statements.
It becomes even more evident when China authorizes Taiwan to be a member of global organisations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) without allowing it to join political bodies like the United Nations. This selective approach uncovers that China prioritises its geopolitical standout regardless of adhering to its One China policy.
AMBIGUOUS ENFORCEMENT OF DIPLOMATIC PRESSURE:
Similarly, China’s diplomatic influence and economic power are used to project One China policy across the globe. This is done by pressurising nations as well as private enterprises so that they can side with its territorial claims.
For example, it has forced nations such as Panama and the Dominican Republic to change their endorsements from Taipei to Beijing by using promises of aid or investment. Similarly, multinational companies have to have Taiwan listed under China on their websites and products lest they miss out on this lucrative Chinese market. This use of economic pressure as a tool to achieve geopolitical objectives illustrates China's strategic approach to enforcing its territorial claims.
In recent years, Lithuania has experienced economic backlash from China because Taiwan chose Vilnius instead of Taipei to set up an office in the city called “Taiwan.” Consequently, trade was halted and there were no more business deals between them thereby indicating how economic pressure is used by China to enforce one China policy.
On another occasion, the National Basketball Association (NBA), had trouble with China after one of the team owners tweeted about support for Hong Kong protests which led to the suspension of NBA broadcasting rights in China as well as the loss of sponsorship deals.
TAIWAN & TIBET UNDER PARADOX AND INTERFERENCE OF
INDIA & THE US:
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te have communicated via X (formerly Twitter), which has consequently been criticized by the dragon. Moreover, on June 5th, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te shared that he is hoping to ‘enhance the fast-growing Taiwan-India partnership’ & ‘expanding collaboration on trade, technology and other sectors to contribute to peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific’.
Modi has also greeted Lai with the same harmonic zeal, assuring mutual upliftment on economic and technological fronts. Xi Jinping, with increasing ties between India and Taiwan, got provoked, and firmly asked to withdraw any sort of official interaction with Taiwan authorities in order to adhere to the One China Policy.
On the other hand, India for decades has been following the One China policy by not furthering any political or diplomatic dialogue with Taiwan, owing to the sophisticated Indo-China terms.
The US, as always, has been very vocal about its support for Tibet. The recent visit in June 2024, by a delegation of US lawmakers to Dharamshala, particularly after the passage of the "promoting a resolution to the Tibet-China dispute act" in both houses of the US Congress reaffirms USA’s support to the Tibetans in Dharamsala.
Again, this action of the US has outraged China to react with an expressed trigger. The Dragon has directed nations to address Tibet as Xizang instead of Xizang Independent, conferring on its territorial claim over the Tibetan region.
To conclude, the One China Policy continues to be the cornerstone of Dragon’s foreign policies and global diplomatic standout, highlighting its practical ambitions of expansion alongside its incongruent nature. India, around these present circumstances, is stuck in an intricate web of geopolitical dynamics.
New Delhi has strictly been following the One China norm, yet a call for an immediate reassessment of international relations is needed in order to safeguard its national interests with neighboring actors.
BY PEARL NIRWAN & AKUL THAPAK
TEAM GEOSTRATA
Kommentare