The diplomatic clash over Taiwan’s status is fundamentally a battle of two competing narratives: the Western-backed ideal of self-determination versus Beijing’s state-crafted story of historical inevitability. China’s demand for the U.S. to “oppose” independence is an attempt to force the world’s leading democracy to abandon the former and embrace the latter.
The narrative of self-determination holds that the 23 million people of Taiwan, who live in a free and democratic society, have the right to determine their own future. This view is rooted in the principles of the UN Charter and is the moral foundation of U.S. support for the island. The current policy of “not supporting” independence is a pragmatic compromise that still respects this underlying principle.
The narrative of historical inevitability, relentlessly pushed by the Chinese Communist Party, argues that Taiwan has been an “inalienable part” of China since ancient times and that its “reunification” with the mainland is an unstoppable historical trend. This narrative dismisses the will of the Taiwanese people as irrelevant and portrays their democratic government as a temporary aberration.
By demanding the U.S. “oppose” independence, Beijing is seeking to co-opt Washington into its narrative. A U.S. concession would be a powerful endorsement of the idea that historical claims and raw power trump the democratic will of a people. It would be a devastating blow to the global narrative of self-determination.
The Trump administration’s choice is therefore not just about policy; it is about which of these two powerful stories it will lend its voice to. The decision will have a profound impact on the global ideological struggle between democratic and authoritarian models of governance.