Taiwan's Future Is Not China's Internal Affair, But a Matter of Global Stake [Zhiding Lecture Enlightenment Forum Miles Yu] EP208
This video is hosted by Miles Yu and explores the international nature of Taiwan's status. Miles Yu points out that the Taiwan issue is not China's internal affair, but rather an international issue involving global security, economics, and democratic values. Citing Winston Churchill's 1955 views and the Treaty of San Francisco, he argues that Taiwan's status remains undetermined, and analyzes Beijing's strategy of packaging its aggression under the guise of history and nationalism. The video emphasizes that Taiwan's democratic success poses a fundamental threat to the authoritarian system of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and defending Taiwan means defending global democratic values and supply chain security.
Video link:
Full text:
Is the Taiwan issue really just China's internal affair? Why did former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's 1955 speech in Parliament, as well as recent remarks by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi regarding the Treaty of San Francisco, both imply that Taiwan's status has always been undetermined? Why do democratic countries such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and European nations insist that Taiwan's security concerns their own interests? How does the international community view Beijing's claim that Taiwan is an internal affair today? Will they accept the CCP's logic of using history and nationalism to package its aggressive ambitions? From the factual aspects of history, economics, and political systems, the existence of Taiwan in the Chinese-speaking world has already posed a fundamental threat to the authoritarian regime of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), because Taiwan's democratic system shatters the CCP's lie that its so-called special national conditions make democracy unsuitable.
Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister and one of the principal drafters of the 1943 Cairo Declaration, actually laid bare a truth back in 1955 that remains correct to this day. In the final year of his second term as prime minister, Churchill clearly stated in the British Parliament that the Cairo Declaration was merely a statement of intent, that the world situation had changed since then, and that the Taiwan issue had become an international problem involving the interests of multiple countries. The fact that Taiwan's sovereignty remains undetermined was also long ago settled by the Treaty of San Francisco. In other words, Churchill saw through long ago that Beijing's persistent claim that Taiwan is an internal affair is completely untenable. From legal reality to international political reality, the Taiwan issue has always been an international matter. Seventy years later, this logic has not only remained unchanged, but has become increasingly clear.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi recently followed in Winston Churchill's footsteps, hinting that Taiwan's status has remained undetermined since the Treaty of San Francisco, while emphasizing Japan's concern for Taiwan's security. Naturally, Beijing threw a fit over this, but it came as no surprise because the whole world can see that Taiwan's future impacts everyone, not just the 23 million free people of Taiwan. China calling Taiwan an internal affair is an excuse no different from those used by many aggressors throughout history. North Korea once claimed that unifying South Korea was its internal affair, Nazi Germany claimed the Sudetenland was inherently German, and now Russia claims Ukraine is its historical territory. Wrapping expansionism in the packaging of national reunification or domestic issues is not only arrogant and overbearing, but also exposes it for what it is: the playbook of aggression.
The United States' position has also been consistent. Although the U.S.-Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty was terminated in 1980, the Taiwan Relations Act and public commitments from successive presidents have ensured that the U.S. commitment to Taiwan's security has never wavered. Washington's core principle is simple: neither side can use force to change the status quo. Today, as Beijing's military threats grow, regardless of which party is in power in the U.S., it has made clear that it would oppose an attack on Taiwan by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). U.S. credibility, deterrence, and alliance systems in Asia are largely tied to whether Taiwan can remain free. Other democracies in the Indo-Pacific are thinking just as clearly, with Japan and Australia repeatedly emphasizing that Taiwan's security is intertwined with their own. The Philippines, facing tensions with China in the South China Sea, has even allowed the U.S. military to station personnel at bases close to Taiwan. Former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol also stated that the issue of Taiwan is a global one.
Beijing's narrative on Taiwan is actually identical to Moscow's rhetoric regarding Ukraine, both using history and ethnicity to package aggression. Europe now sees this as well; NATO and EU officials, along with lawmakers from multiple countries, have pointed out that Taiwan's security is closely tied to Europe's own safety. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, everyone understands more clearly that authoritarian expansionism is not someone else's problem, but a pain point for all democracies. If we reject Russia's logic yet accept Beijing's identical logic of aggression in Asia, the world's moral standards and strategic consistency will collapse.
Beyond politics and security, there is a very practical issue: Taiwan's irreplaceable role in the global economy. Taiwan is a global semiconductor powerhouse and an essential hub connecting worldwide shipping lanes. If Beijing takes control of Taiwan, it effectively controls international commercial routes such as the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Strait of Malacca, which are the central arteries of global trade. That is why former EU High Representative Josep Borrell put it bluntly: Taiwan is part of our geostrategic landscape, an attack on Taiwan would cause immense economic shock, and letting the world's most critical chip supply chain fall into the hands of an authoritarian regime would have repercussions reaching far beyond Asia, affecting the entire world.
Yet Taiwan's importance goes beyond geography and trade; it is fundamentally a question of values—can a democratic nation protect another democracy threatened by authoritarianism? Taiwan's freedom proves that East Asia is entirely capable of moving toward democracy, with South Korea, the Philippines, Mongolia, and Taiwan itself serving as the clearest examples. If Taiwan falls, dictatorships globally will become even more emboldened, and those within China who yearn for freedom will lose hope. More crucially, Taiwan itself is already changing China. For 76 years, the CCP has viewed Taiwan as a stubborn thorn in its side because Taiwan's existence proves that a Chinese-speaking society can also achieve democracy and do it well. For the CCP, this is a fundamental threat. Taiwan's success directly punctures Beijing's lie that China's unique national conditions make it unsuited for democracy. Taiwan is not just a regional issue, nor even just an international issue; more importantly, it is a mirror of ideas and systems. It reflects the possibility that authoritarian regimes fear the most: that people truly can freely choose their own future. This is precisely why Taiwan's existence makes the CCP so uneasy.
Churchill saw it clearly in 1955, and the facts remain the same today: Taiwan is not China's internal affair, but a matter of global future significance. Beijing calls Taiwan an internal affair not because it has merit, but because it is a strategy to disguise expansion. The world must not mistake the CCP's rhetoric of national unification for a normal discourse on sovereignty; in essence, it is the language of conquest. Defending Taiwan is not just about holding an island, but about upholding a principle. Freedom cannot be sacrificed for authoritarian ambition; supporting Taiwan is supporting the world's security, prosperity, and values.