By Matt Underwood Taiwan does not want China’s “one country, two systems”, president says, and frankly, that’s not surprising. After observing China’s actions in Hong Kong, it’s clear why Taiwan would be wary of such an arrangement. It’s a pretty straightforward message, and the sentiment is loud and clear. It’s less about news and more about a re-iteration of a stance that makes perfect sense given the circumstances. The reality is that the “one country, two systems” model, as implemented by China, seems less about coexistence and more about eventual assimilation. It’s not a partnership; it’s a gradual takeover masked by initial promises.
The handling of Hong Kong should serve as a cautionary tale. The narrative is that China, after initially promising a degree of autonomy, began to chip away at the freedoms and institutions that made Hong Kong unique. This isn’t just about politics; it’s about a fundamental lack of trust. It highlights how the ‘two systems’ aspect is, at best, a temporary phase before everything aligns under a single system, ultimately controlled by Beijing.
It’s understandable that Taiwan’s leadership would reject this model. The “one country, two systems” proposal, as presented by China, essentially means “my way or the highway.” After watching Hong Kong’s fate, it’s a very easy conclusion to reach. The whole situation has become a diplomatic blunder on China’s part. It’s almost as though China, by crushing Hong Kong, inadvertently solidified Taiwan’s resolve to remain independent. In fact, public opinion in Taiwan was actually moving towards some form of political union before China’s actions in Hong Kong. After the crackdown, that sentiment evaporated.
The reactions echo a sense of disappointment and a loss of faith in China’s promises. There’s a prevailing fear of being swallowed whole, of losing everything that makes Taiwan, Taiwan. It’s a valid concern, considering how Hong Kong’s freedoms have been eroded over time. The parallel to corporate acquisitions is also quite telling. Companies often make promises to maintain a target company’s culture, only to gradually dismantle it and assimilate it.
The importance of the US stance on the matter is another important point. While the US might have had the power to make a difference in the past, its focus seems elsewhere, according to some. The situation in Taiwan is complex, and the potential for Chinese aggression is a real concern. Investing in defense, particularly in anti-ship missiles, submarines, and anti-air defense, seems to be a prudent move for Taiwan to protect its country.
There is a sense of inevitability and a feeling that China’s expansionist ambitions will make it very difficult for Taiwan to remain independent. The world is watching, and it seems that the focus is on self-preservation. It’s a sad realization that the world’s reliance on Taiwan’s technology could lead other nations to abandon them in their time of need.
Looking at what happened with Hong Kong, it’s clear why Taiwan would want nothing to do with this idea. The situation in Hong Kong should offer some valuable insight into why the “one country, two systems” policy is not working and why the majority of people on Taiwan don’t trust China. It’s hard to imagine why Taiwan would want to embrace a policy that proved so disastrous for Hong Kong.
The people of Taiwan are standing firm. They have seen the destruction of Hong Kong. There’s a clear understanding of the risks, and the sentiment is overwhelming: “No thanks.”