Since 1949, the year of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, states have had four foreign policy options towards China: recognize the People’s Republic; recognize Taiwan (Republic of China, in its official name); not recognize any; or recognize both. The “one China principle” has vetoed this last option, leaving only the first three. This principle argues for the existence of a single Chinese State but there is controversy as to which is the legitimate government that represents it.
Beijing has upheld this principle since 1949, maintaining a constant and invariable political orientation towards Taiwan over time. For their part, the Taiwan authorities upheld this principle from 1949 to 1972, the year in which Taipei modified in fact its external orientation. Since then, they have unsuccessfully sought what mainland Chinese call “double recognition,” that is, for a third country to recognize Taiwan at the same time as it recognizes the People’s Republic. Something that Beijing rejects in absolute terms.
The current situation of recognition is largely favorable to the Asian giant. Of the 194 member states of the United Nations, 181 recognize China. In Latin America and the Caribbean, 26 recognize Beijing and seven recognize Taiwan out of a total of 13 states that still maintain diplomatic relations with the island worldwide. Regardless of the number, the “one China principle” has been respected by the international community regardless of who is given the recognition.
In South America, Paraguay has recognized the Republic of China since 1957. It cannot be denied that the Paraguayan authorities respect and maintain constant and invariable the “one China principle” since that year, although this foreign policy orientation is contrary to Beijing’s interests. This same line of political conduct has been carried out by Guatemala, Haiti, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Kitts and Nevis; while Belize and Saint Lucia maintained inconstant recognition of Taiwan.
Nicaragua is the extreme case of variability. Sandinismo broke relations with Taiwan and recognized China in 1985. But, after the Tiananmen repression, President Violeta Chamorro decided to reestablish diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1990; while President Daniel Ortega again interrupted relations in 2021 to recognize the People’s Republic. In South America, no such inconstancy is observed: Chile, Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and the rest of the states maintain recognition of China since they interrupted their ties with Taiwan.
In all cases, respect for the “one China principle” is a decision of the countries, based on sovereignty, independence of their foreign policies and the interests that each seeks to safeguard, especially when China has reached the rank of superpower. economical. Precisely here the principle becomes defined as a one-China policy, referring to the action implemented by China and members of the international community in defense and recognition of said principle.
The pressure that the principle exerts on states is evident when comparing the “Chinese question” with the “Korean question,” where both recognize the “two Koreas principle.” Indeed, the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were politically recognized and established diplomatic relations with members of the international community, being state-parties of the United Nations. Conflict still persists on this issue and, at the same time, both admit double international recognition, allowing third states to maneuver with greater freedom.
For this reason, the use of the principle by the People’s Republic of China limits Taiwan’s international actions by restricting the margins of sovereign action of the rest of the states, although they maintain the ultimate decision of recognition, as expressly suggested by the norms of international law. Recently, Beijing intensified its one-China policy by applying economic and diplomatic sanctions as ways to discipline those countries that extend their relations with Taiwan to the political level, such as Lithuania and the Czech Republic. Beijing’s firepower is so important that Ukraine has maintained diplomatic relations with China despite its benevolent neutrality toward Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian war.
The inconsistencies of Nicaragua and other countries show the dependence of foreign policy decisions on the internal changes of the states. In democracies, the relationship between political alternation and the “Chinese question” is evident and has two sides: the first refers to third states; the second, to the alternation in Taiwan.
Recently, the political alternation in Argentina forced the rapid reaction of the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Xi Jinping sent a letter to president-elect Javier Milei in response to the disruptive threat posed by the Argentine candidate during the electoral campaign. This situation had also occurred during the 2015 alternation, when Mauricio Macri questioned some aspects of the relationship with China. At the same time, the political transition from Barack Obama to Donald Trump and the start of the “tariff war” between Washington and Beijing. Italy’s exit from the Belt and Road Initiative is another example of change brought about by political alternation.
The other side is the alternation in Taiwan. This has been a determining factor in obstructing or advancing the dialogue with Beijing. For example, the alternations of the years 2000 and 2016 were a factor of tension after the arrival of the Democratic Progressive Party (PPD) to power; while the alternation of the PPD to the Kuomintang in 2008 meant detente between the parties and the signing of important agreements. Therefore, the elections in Taiwan raise questions about the continuity of the tension, if a political succession occurs, or a thaw is expected if the alternation occurs. In both cases it will have an impact on Chinese-American relations and the rest of the countries of the world, particularly in Latin America. But no matter what happens in the elections, the international community will continue to respect the “one China principle.”
