Why the absurd one-China policy must be upheld NOT

with No Comments

Share This:



Following Trump-Xi meetings over the future of Asia, The Economist published a short piece entitled “One China, many meanings: Why the absurd one-China policy must be upheld.” According to the reporter, Trump’s decision to uphold the Chinese alleged idea that there is only one China, that is, the People’s Republic of China, is for the good of Asia. Quoting The Economist,

“Were America to reject the policy, mainland China would be enraged. Anti-American riots would erupt. The government in Beijing might even respond by launching a military attack on Taiwan, or American forces in the region. The global economy would shudder. Millions of lives would be threatened.”

But don’t get it wrong: Cowardice, not goodness, lies behind The Economist explanation of why Trump must tell Chinese leaders –even if he doesn’t believe so himself– that Taiwan belongs to China. Cowardice in front a dictatorship responsible for the deaths of more people that Stalin, Hitler, and any other mass murderer in history, all put together.

As Lee Yee has recently pointed out, the fact that China is the only country that feels the necessity to claim that there is only “One China” clearly proves that there are actually “two Chinas” –or more exactly, that they are not the “real China.” Because what we call today Taiwan –for stupid reasons related to Richard Nixon’s personal buttering of China during the Cold War– was originally called Republic of China: a name Taiwan still uses today. And the Republic of China was founded in 1912, thirty-seven years before the People’s Republic of “One China.” So please, someone explain to me how a 37-years-older country can belong to a 37-years-younger one. Maths, please.

Both The Economist’s fears fueled by cowardice and Trump’s decision rising from political ignorance are wrong. Chinese leaders are, like most of the radical, prejudiced population they have brainwashed with their compulsory nationalism, Communism, victimhood, and political paternalism, like little, crying babies. If American leaders were more familiar with our Western values and literature, they would be aware of the “Two Minutes Hate” from Orwell’s novel 1984. Socialist states need to express their hate for their enemies, usually fictional, in a daily basis. China has been crying over territories belonging to almost 20 other countries, from Japan to Russia to Philippines, for a very long time. And what has happen when the West has denied their absurd claims, as it happened recently with the Spratly Islands? Surprise: Nothing. Just as nothing happened when Trump initially received a call from Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen. China just complained, cried, and moved to the next “Two Minutes Hate”-event. As it has always been.

China doesn’t want to go to war and will do nothing to start a war, especially not because of some foreign, evil white leader saying that there are two Chinas. They will just complain, cry out loud about their never-ending 100 years of shame, and forget until the next president of the United States butters them up again.

Leave a Reply