news
Taiwan in the Crossfire of History, Law, and Power: A Feature Analysis of Competing Claims and the One-China Question
By Michael Olukayode
The status of Taiwan remains one of the most enduring and strategically sensitive disputes in modern international relations — a question where history, law, identity, and geopolitics collide without easy resolution. It is not merely a territorial disagreement between Beijing and Taipei; it is a layered contest over legitimacy, sovereignty, and the meaning of statehood in a shifting global order.
Across recent scholarly salons and policy interventions in Africa and beyond — particularly the Abuja media salon hosted by the China General Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria — a striking convergence has emerged around the One-China Principle, even as interpretations of its implications remain sharply contested.
The Historical Fault Line: 1949 and the Birth of Two Political Realities
The modern Taiwan question originates in the Chinese Civil War, which ended in 1949 with the Communist Party of China establishing the People’s Republic of China on the mainland while the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) government retreated to Taiwan.
As Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim forcefully stated at the Abuja salon:
“Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, it has no independence and it is not a member of the United Nations.”
From Beijing’s perspective, this was not the creation of two states but the continuation of one China under different administrations.
This position aligns with the broader Chinese narrative repeatedly emphasized in diplomatic discourse, including the categorical assertion that:
“Taiwan has never been a country, was never one in the past, and will never be one in the future.”
Taiwan, however, evolved in a very different direction. Over decades, it developed into a functioning democratic polity with its own political institutions, elections, military structure, and constitutional governance.
This divergence produces what scholars describe as a central paradox: a de facto state operating with constrained de jure recognition, facing a sovereign claim from a rising global power.
The Legal Architecture: UN Resolution 2758 and Competing Interpretations
A cornerstone of Beijing’s argument is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which restored China’s seat at the United Nations in 1971.
At the Abuja salon, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim insisted:
“This resolution has explicitly established… that there is only one seat for China in the United Nations, leaving no room for ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’.”
From this perspective, Taiwan is not a separate subject of international law but part of China whose representation is subsumed under Beijing.
Taiwan and its supporters contest this interpretation, arguing that Resolution 2758 addresses representation — not sovereignty — leaving Taiwan’s political status deliberately unresolved.
This legal ambiguity has become what many scholars now describe as structured uncertainty, sustaining diplomatic flexibility while preventing formal resolution.
Beijing’s Position: Sovereignty, Reunification, and Historical Mission
China’s position is rooted in sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national rejuvenation.
As reiterated by President Xi Jinping:
“The great tide of compatriots on both sides of the strait becoming closer, more connected and coming together will not change. This is the verdict of history.”
In Chinese official discourse, reunification is not framed as a negotiable issue but as a historical inevitability tied to national revival.
This perspective was reinforced in Abuja by African analysts who align with Beijing’s framing of sovereignty as non-negotiable, with Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim emphasizing that Africa’s diplomatic alignment reflects a global consensus increasingly anchored in the One-China Principle.
Taiwan’s Position: Democracy, Identity, and De Facto Sovereignty
Taiwan’s position rests on lived political reality and democratic self-governance.
While officially still called the Republic of China, Taiwan functions as an independent political system with its own elections, judiciary, military, and constitution.
Its leadership under President Lai Ching-te emphasizes Taiwan’s distinct political identity and rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims.
From Beijing’s perspective, this is framed as separatism. From Taiwan’s perspective, it is democratic self-determination.
The result is a deeply entrenched ideological divide: territorial integrity versus political identity.
Strategic Ambiguity and Global Power Politics
A critical dimension of the Taiwan issue is the role of external powers, particularly the United States.
Washington’s policy of strategic ambiguity — recognizing the One-China framework while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan — is widely seen as both stabilizing and contradictory.
At the Abuja salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim and other speakers framed external engagement with Taiwan as part of what they described as “separatist encouragement,” while emphasizing African alignment with Beijing’s position.
Africa’s Diplomatic Alignment and the One-China Consensus
A recurring theme in Abuja was overwhelming African diplomatic alignment with Beijing.
As multiple presenters emphasized:
“As of May 2026, 53 out of 54 African nations adhere to the One-China policy.”
The only exception remains Eswatini.
At the salon, Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim argued that this position reflects historical continuity in African diplomacy:
“African nations have consistently stood with China on issues concerning its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Dr. Segun Showunmi, who is an Ace Public affairs analyst and social impact expert, with experience in governance, policy and civic engagement added that this alignment is not merely political but developmental:
“That consistency created trust and in international politics, trust often translates into investment, infrastructure, and strategic cooperation.”
The Abuja Diplomatic Intervention: China’s Official Position
A defining moment of the salon came from the representative of the Chinese state — the Counsellor of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Nigeria, Ms.Dong Hairong— who reiterated Beijing’s formal position in unambiguous terms:
“There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”
This intervention anchored the entire discussion within the framework of Chinese sovereignty doctrine and reinforced that diplomatic relations with China are premised on acceptance of the One-China Principle.
⸻
Prof. Sam Amadi: Strategic Ambiguity as Diplomatic Reality
Professor Sam Amadi, a policy strategist and law and governance expert, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts,
introduced a more analytical framing, arguing that global practice is defined not by clarity but by managed contradiction.
He stated:
“The One-China principle and One-China policy are clear, but difficult to operationalise.”
He further explained:
“What we have today is strategic ambiguity… meaning they acknowledge, but at the same time, they engage.”
For Amadi, the central question for Africa is not ideological but practical:
“Should we foreclose ambiguity and advance a straight One-China principle, which will exclude all kinds of trade and engagement with Taiwan?”
His conclusion favored diplomatic exclusivity with calibrated economic engagement.
Strategic Realism: Why the Status Quo Persists
Despite rhetorical intensity, the Taiwan issue persists in its unresolved form due to structural constraints:
* China cannot accept formal separation without undermining sovereignty doctrine
* Taiwan cannot accept reunification without losing political autonomy
* The United States benefits strategically from ambiguity
* African states largely align diplomatically with Beijing while prioritizing development ties
As Professor Amadi summarized:
“We acknowledge these principles, but we go back there and also deal with Taiwan in trade… using strategic ambiguity.”
Conclusion: History as Contest, Diplomacy as Equilibrium
The Abuja salon underscored a broader truth about the Taiwan question: it is not merely a territorial dispute but a global governance dilemma.
On one side stands China’s categorical assertion, echoed in Abuja:
“There is only one China.”
On the other stands Taiwan’s democratic identity and de facto autonomy.
Between them lies a global system that simultaneously enforces principle and tolerates ambiguity.
As reflected across the Abuja interventions, including those of Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, Dr. Segun Showunmi, Prof. Sam Amadi, and the Chinese diplomatic Counsellor, the Taiwan question endures not because it lacks answers — but because every available answer carries strategic consequences the world is unwilling to fully accept.
And so Taiwan remains what it has become in the 21st century: not only a territorial dispute, but a permanent stress test of international order itself.
Results from the 30 local government areas in the 2026 Osun State governorship election show that Governor Ademola Adeleke of the Accord Party (AP) recorded victories in 19 councils, ahead of the All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate, Asiwaju Munirudeen Bola Oyebamiji (AMBO), who won 11 local government areas.
The local government results indicate that Adeleke polled a cumulative 511,067 votes, while Oyebamiji secured 444,815 votes across the state.
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) candidate, Najeem Salaam, garnered 17,180 votes from the 30 local government areas.
Adeleke won Boluwaduro, Ede South, Ife North, Ilesa West, Ifedayo, Ife Central, Orolu, Osogbo, Oriade, Odo-Otin, Ife East, Ifelodun, Iwo, Ede North, Ila, Aiyedire, Egbedore, Aiyedaade and Ejigbo local government areas.
Oyebamiji emerged victorious in Ilesa East, Boripe, Irepodun, Obokun, Atakunmosa West, Irewole, Atakunmosa East, Isokan, Ola Oluwa, Ife South and Olorunda local government areas.
Based on the collated local government results, Adeleke leads with victories in 19 of the state’s 30 local government areas, while the APC candidate secured 11 councils.
Accord won 19 out of the 30 LGAs: (Boluwaduro, Ede South, Ife North, Ilesa West, Ifedayo, Ife Central, Orolu, Osogbo, Oriade,
Odo-Otin, Ife East, Ifelodun, Iwo, Ede North, Ila, Aiyedire, Egbedore, Aiyedaade, Ejigbo)
APC won the remaining 11 LGAs (Ilesa East, Boripe, Irepodun, Obokun, Atakunmosa West, Irewole, Atakunmosa East, Isokan, Ola Oluwa, Ife South, Olorunda).
Here are the Osun 2026 Governorship Election Results of the 30 LGAs: GeographicReference
Boluwaduro LG
Accord: 7,118 votes
APC: 7,050 votes
ADC: 179 votes
Ede South LG
Accord: 26,188 votes
APC: 6,219 votes
ADC: 390 votes
Ife North LG
Accord: 13,879 votes
APC: 9,613 votes
ADC: 333 votes
Ilesa West LG
Accord: 16,196 votes
APC: 12,756 votes
ADC: 673 votes
Ifedayo LG
Accord: 7,427 votes
APC: 6,836 votes
ADC: 115 votes
Ilesa East LG
APC: 16,208 votes
Accord: 12,280 votes
ADC: 504 votes
Ife Central LG
Accord: 21,171 votes
APC: 15,913 votes
ADC: 747 votes
Boripe LG
APC: 19,963 votes
Accord: 12,448 votes
ADC: 379 votes
Irepodun LG
APC: 15,713 votes
Accord: 14,504 votes
ADC: 249 votes
Obokun LG
APC: 16,120 votes
Accord: 12,023 votes
ADC: 205 votes
Orolu LG
Accord: 12,352 votes
APC: 10,622 votes
ADC: 236 votes
Osogbo LG
Accord: 36,480 votes
APC: 30,474 votes
ADC: 1,503 votes
Oriade LG
Accord: 21,343 votes
APC: 14,863 votes
ADC: 423 votes
Odo-Otin LG
Accord: 18,003 votes
APC: 15,435 votes
ADC: 377 votes
Ife East LG
Accord: 27,201 votes
APC: 18,600 votes
ADC: 935 votes
Ifelodun LG
Accord: 21,107 votes
APC: 18,396 votes
ADC: 509 votes
Atakunmosa West LG
APC: 10,037 votes
Accord: 7,479 votes
ADC: 213 votes
Iwo LG
Accord: 27,085 votes
APC: 19,660 votes
ADC: 588 votes
Ede North LG
Accord: 35,427 votes
APC: 10,283 votes
ADC: 307 votes
Ila LG
Accord: 16,211 votes
APC: 12,934 votes
ADC: 259 votes
Irewole LG
APC: 29,972
Accord: 10,934 votes
ADC: 275 votes
Aiyedire LG
Accord: 11,073 votes
APC: 9,910 votes
ADC: 148 votes
Atakunmosa East LG
Discover more
Nigeria News Subscription
Politics News Updates
Executive Branch
City & Local Guides
Business News Analysis
Nigerian Economic Updates
APC: 9,936
Accord: 7,872 votes
ADC: 333 votes
Egbedore LG
Accord: 19,278 votes
APC: 11,194 votes
ADC: 363 votes
Aiyedaade LG
Accord: 16,681 votes
APC: 15,719 votes
ADC: 331 votes
Isokan LG
APC: 14,063 votes
Accord: 13,765 votes
ADC: 384 votes
Ola Oluwa LG
APC: 10,782 votes
Accord: 10,063 votes
ADC: 213 votes
Ife South
APC: 14,678 votes
Accord: 13,507 votes
ADC: 290 votes
Ejigbo LG
Accord: 18,458 votes
APC: 16,195 votes
ADC: 5,053 votes
Olorunda LG
APC: 24,671 votes
Accord: 23,514 votes
ADC: 666 votes.
President Bola Tinubu has approved a Federal Government delegation led by his Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, to represent Nigeria at the maiden Nigeria Diaspora Investment Economic Conference in Toronto, Canada.
The delegation includes Borno State Governor Babagana Zulum, Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo, Kaduna State Governor Uba Sani, Plateau State Governor Caleb Mutfwang and Zamfara State Governor Dauda Lawal.
The conference, themed “Invest Nigeria, Thrive Abroad,” is scheduled to hold from August 12 to 15 in Toronto.
The development was announced in a statement issued by Nigerians in Diaspora Commission, on X on Friday.
According to the statement, members of the delegation also include the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu; Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Jumoke Oduwole; and Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo.
Representatives of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, Nigeria Immigration Service, Nigeria Revenue Service, Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission, Nigeria Export Promotion Council and the National Information Technology Development Agency are also expected to participate.
The statement said Canadian officials expected at the conference include President of the Treasury Board of Canada, Shafqat Ali; Ontario Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, Graham McGregor; Ontario lawmaker Deepak Anand; Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown; Councillor Rod Power; and Ontario Minister of Women and Economic Opportunities, Charmaine Williams.
How to become next Miss Nigeria
Quoting the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of NiDCOM, Abike Dabiri-Erewa, the statement said, “The calibre of officials attending the conference demonstrates President Tinubu’s commitment to strengthening economic cooperation between Nigeria and Canada through trade, investment and diaspora engagement.”
It further quoted Dabiri-Erewa as saying the event “is more than a conference” and is designed as “an outcome-driven investment platform” that will connect international investors with “investment-ready” opportunities across key sectors of Nigeria’s economy while strengthening bilateral economic relations between the two countries.
According to the statement, the conference is being organised by NiDCOM in collaboration with the Nigerian High Commission in Ottawa, the Canadian High Commission in Abuja and other stakeholders.
It said discussions will focus on agriculture, technology, manufacturing, infrastructure, energy, healthcare and the digital economy.
Newsthumb reports that the Nigeria Diaspora Investment Economic Conference is the first investment-focused forum organised by the Federal Government through NiDCOM to promote economic partnerships between Nigeria and its diaspora community.
According to the World Bank, Nigeria is one of Africa’s largest recipients of diaspora remittances, with annual inflows amounting to billions of dollars.
…says action could undermine public confidence in electoral process
…insists anti-graft agencies must remain independent but avoid actions suggesting political interference
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Thursday directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to immediately take steps to vacate a court order freezing the bank accounts of the Osun State Government, saying the timing of the action, just days before the state’s governorship election, could create the impression of federal interference in the electoral process.
The President said although he respects the constitutional independence of the anti-graft agency and had no prior knowledge of its action, he was compelled to intervene in the overriding public interest to preserve public confidence in the credibility and fairness of Nigeria’s democratic process. NigerianBusiness Coverage
The EFCC had on Wednesday froze the accounts of the Osun State Government, placing a Post No Debit (PND), on its First Bank account, alleging fraudulent handling of N11 billion ecology funds, intervention funds and Federal Account Allocation Committee (FAAC).
However, in a personally signed statement issued from the State House, Abuja, President Tinubu disclosed that the EFCC had obtained the court order on August 5, 2026, freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government.
He said he was “deeply embarrassed” by the timing of the development, explaining that actions taken by federal institutions are often attributed to the President, regardless of whether he authorised them.
“It has come to my notice that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) obtained a court order on August 5, 2026, freezing the accounts of the Osun State Government. I must state that I feel deeply embarrassed not by the EFCC’s exercise of its mandate backed by a court order, but by the timing of the agency’s action.
“This is so because every action taken by an institution of State, especially at the Federal level, is always credited to me, as the President, even when I may not have had any prior knowledge of the action”, the President said.
Tinubu reiterated his long-standing policy of allowing anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies to carry out their statutory responsibilities without political interference, stressing that he had deliberately refrained from directing the operational activities of the EFCC and other investigative bodies since assuming office.
He said, “since assuming office, I have consistently maintained that anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies must be allowed to discharge their statutory responsibilities independently, professionally, without fear or favour, or political interference.
“I have therefore deliberately refrained from directing or interfering in the operational activities of the EFCC or any other investigative or prosecutorial agency because I firmly believe that strong democratic institutions, operating within the confines of the law, are indispensable to democratic good governance and the rule of law”, he said.
The President maintained that institutions established by law should be allowed to exercise their powers independently and without requiring presidential approval for routine operational decisions.
However, he said the circumstances surrounding the EFCC’s action required presidential intervention because of the proximity of the Osun governorship election.
“As President, I am committed to allowing institutions of State to function and take any action they consider necessary in the interest of proper governance without the need for any prior approval. Indeed, that is why institutions are set up by law with clearly defined powers.
“While I am yet to be fully apprised of the facts which informed the action of EFCC in approaching the court to obtain the said order freezing the Osun State Government account, I am not in the slightest doubt that the timing of the action of EFCC is inauspicious, and therefore I feel compelled to intervene”, he said.
The President warned that no action by any federal agency should create the perception that the Federal Government was attempting to influence the outcome of the forthcoming governorship poll.
“Osun State is only a few days away from its gubernatorial election. Therefore, nothing ought to be done to give an impression that the EFCC or indeed any other agency of the federal government is being used to interfere with the election”, he stated.
Tinubu said preserving public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process was paramount, adding that he was duty-bound to act in the national interest.
“Based on the foregoing premise, I am duty-bound to issue a directive on this issue in consonance with the overriding public interest in preserving public confidence and the integrity, credibility, and fairness of our democratic process”, he said.
The President consequently directed the anti-graft agency to immediately reverse its legal action against the Osun State Government.
“Accordingly, I have directed the EFCC to immediately proceed to the court to vacate the order and discontinue whatever action it has instituted against the Osun State Government in this regard”, Tinubu declared.
-
news6 years agoUPDATE: #ENDSARS: CCTV footage of Lekki shootings intact – Says Sanwo – Olu
-
lifestyle6 years agoFormer Miss World: Mixed reactions trail Agbani Darego’s looks
-
health5 years agoChairman Agege LG, Ganiyu Egunjobi Receives Covid-19 Vaccines
-
lifestyle5 years agoObateru: Celebrating a Quintessential PR Man at 60
-
news1 year agoBREAKING: Tinubu swears in new NNPCL Board
-
health6 years agoUPDATE : Nigeria Records 790 new cases of COVID-19
-
entertainment2 years agoAshny Set for Valentine Special and new Album ‘ Femme Fatale’
-
health6 years agoBREAKING: Nigeria confirms 663 new cases of COVID-19