Recently, the United States has spread quite a few pieces of disinformation and falsehoods with regard to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. The Israeli media and friends of all sectors are paying close attention to related issues, and inquired of the Chinese Embassy in Israel. We hereby further respond to related questions as follows: 

Q: The US side claims that a visit to Taiwan by the House Speaker is not without precedent, and visits of this kind do not mean any change in the one-China policy the US holds. What’s your comment on this? 

A: Then US House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s visit to Taiwan was a serious mistake, and the Chinese Government expressed its strong opposition at the time. The US has no right or reason to repeat the mistake, and cannot use its past wrongdoing as an excuse or reason for repeating it today. Or is the US considering repeating all its wrongdoings and mistakes all over again? 

When concluding whether the US policy toward Taiwan has changed or not, we need to look at not only what it says but more importantly what it does. For some time now, the US has gone out of its way to play “the Taiwan card” and contain China. It keeps distorting, fudging and hollowing out the one-China principle, stepping up official exchanges with Taiwan, supporting Taiwan in developing “asymmetric capabilities”, and spreading the idea that “Taiwan’s status is undetermined”, thus emboldening “Taiwan independence” separatist activities. If these do not count as changing the US policy, then what are they? 

Q: The US side claims that it’s the Chinese side that is “unilaterally changing the status quo in the Taiwan Strait”. What is the truth? 

A: Such claims are outright lies and slanders. Taiwan has never been a country, there is only one China in the world, and both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China. This has been the status quo of Taiwan since ancient times. The China-US joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations in 1979 stressed that the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal Government of China and that Taiwan is part of China. This has been the status quo of the Taiwan Strait for decades. But this status quo has been broken, not by China, but by the US and the separatist forces in Taiwan. 

In 2000, the US put its own so-called “Taiwan Relations Act” before the three China-US joint Communiqués. Wasn’t this an attempt to change the status quo? A couple of years ago, the US inserted the so-called “Six Assurances to Taiwan”, something it had long kept secret, into its formulation of the one-China policy. Wasn’t this an attempt to change the status quo or hollow out its one-China policy? We advise the US side to take a careful look at the three China-US joint Communiqués, and then they will have a clear understanding of what the cross-Strait status quo really is and who it is that is changing the status quo. 

The same goes for the Taiwan authorities. Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power, it has continuously sought “incremental independence”, pushed forward “de-sinicization”, and attempted to create the false impression of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” whenever it had the chance. Isn’t this blatantly changing the status quo as well? 

Q: Some people are comparing the Taiwan question to the Ukraine Issue. What are the differences between them? 

A: Taiwan and Ukraine are fundamentally different issues and not comparable at all. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, and the Taiwan question is entirely China’s internal affair. Anyone underscoring the principle of respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity should apply it to the Taiwan question, rather than practice any double standard when it comes to Taiwan. We cannot accept urging respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity on the one hand, and trampling on China’s red line on Taiwan and hurting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity on the other. Taiwan is China’s Taiwan. No foreign country is entitled to act as a judge on the Taiwan question. We strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification with the greatest sincerity and efforts, but we will not renounce the use of force and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures.