中文
By Xin Ping
Right after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi finished her "official trip" to Taiwan, according to herself, on her own will, according to the U.S. government, the G7 Foreign Ministers issued a statement saying that they would adhere to their countries' "respective one China policies, where applicable."
The statement prompted a revisit to a critical issue — how should a country deal with another country's sovereignty and territorial integrity?
But to start with, are all these countries perfectly united, as the names of some of them suggest?
First and foremost, the United States could have been the Divided States. It can't afford to turn a deaf ear to the call for independence, and the threat has been coming from all directions and repeatedly haunting the country throughout history and in reality.
Along the west coast, the voices of people chanting "Yes California" have been raised to an unprecedented level since 2016; deep down the south, many Texans still won't let go of every chance to re-dream the Lone Star dream; in the east, pursuit of independence is never a new topic for many Vermont residents; to the north, many Alaskans want not only geographical but also political separation; and away in the Pacific, a large number of native Hawaiians have been reminding the world every now and then of the forced annexation of their original kingdom by the U.S.
The U.K. has got too long an official name to be borne in mind. Apparently the Brave hearts are not some sort of William Wallace patent, as the roar for freedom has spread over the Highlands and across the Saint George Channel. Now with Sinn Fein and the Scottish National Party both taking charge and the potential Scotexit or Northern Irexit looming large, Number 10 might risk sliding further in the Downing slope.
In Japan, if you look at the map, you will find that the country looks like the lower part of an eyebrow, and the Okinawa Prefecture looks just like the tears shed into the ocean, which might explain the sadness of the Ryukyuans whose original kingdom was robbed and whose call for independence has been ignored.
In France, a large number of Corsicans are waiting for the chance where another Napoleon Bonaparte will sweep through Paris again; oceans away from Paris, the call for independence in New Caledonia and French Polynesia has never ceased.
In Germany and Italy, some residents in Bavaria and Lombardy have also shown a certain amount of interest in independence to preserve their economic edge.
When it comes to Canada, a frequently asked question would be: Vancouver or Toronto, which the capital of the country? Montreal might not be able to squeeze into the nominee list, which is why "Vive le Québec libre" could be a highly celebrated slogan.
Certainly, we are not supposed to commemorate the violent scenes created by the Irish Republican Army (IRA), Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) or other similar separatist forces, but the fact is that confrontations, rivalries and even fights exist between the unionists and separatists in almost all of these "united" states and kingdoms, where applicable.
That said, never did China rise up to the occasion like some sort of arrogant preacher who keeps blabbing about how other countries should behave, not even once. China has never sent delegations to get in touch with or support the separatists, or sent warships to cruise around Hawaii to maintain "peace and stability" in that region. In fact, China has always regarded such issues as other countries' internal affairs.
All of the aforementioned countries, together with the EU, established their diplomatic ties with China on the basis of the one-China principle. Obviously, diplomatic relationship are built upon mutual consensus between both sides, and any attempt to define such a relationship unilaterally is nothing but a brutal violation of the promises made.
When the United States talks about its one-China policy, apart from the three Joint Communiques, it will always insert disclaimers and qualifiers such as the so-called "Six Assurances" and "Taiwan Relations Act," which were approved merely through domestic procedures and never recognized by China, sending a message that it could trample on other countries' sovereignty simply with the consent of its own congress.
When the G7 issued its statement this time, it added some stuff to the one-China policy, as it always does, in the form of some sort of prefixes, suffixes or notes, pointing to something extremely wrong and concerning.
By talking about these countries' "respective one China principles," the statement is implying that there could be different versions of the one-China principle, and each country has its own right to interpret the principle in different ways. By adding "where applicable," the statement is implying that these countries could determine under what circumstances they are supposed to adopt the one-China principle, hinting that there could be occasions when the one-China principle is deemed unnecessary or even irrelevant.
All in all, it is not difficult to find that separatist issues exist in all of these countries, but what is different is China's attitude towards their internal affairs. While China chooses to respect other countries' sovereignty, someone chooses to stick to double standards, and trample and spit on others' sovereignty.
That's not strange at all.
"We are very often criticized for double standards. But international politics is largely about applying double standards. We do not use the same criteria for all problems," said EU's chief diplomat Josep Borrell, when asked about EU's different attitudes towards the Ukraine crisis as opposed to the situation in Gaza.
Well, that seems to explain everything.
The author is a commentator on international affairs who writes regularly for CGTN, Xinhua, and Global Times.
