As someone closely involved for decades in the formulation of U.S. policy toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan and who lived and worked for five years each in Beijing and Taipei, I found Yawen Xu’s Dec. 12 commentary, “Reading China’s reaction to Taiwanese leader’s stopover,” worrisome on several fronts.

First, the information about the author failed to note that the Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party directly supervises CGTN, for which the author works. The Propaganda Department has publicly stated that its mission is to unify views about China in accord with those of the Chinese Communist Party. While the article may represent the author’s personal views, it would also have been vetted by her superiors in the Communist Party prior to submission for publication.

More importantly, the op-ed misstates U.S. policy regarding Taiwan. The fundamental flaw is the author quoting the Chinese government’s assertion that the Biden administration should “honor its commitment to the one-China principle, which recognized that there is only one China and Taiwan is an inseparable part of it.” Neither the Biden administration nor any previous U.S. administration has accepted China’s “one-China principle.” Instead, the current and all previous administrations have adhered to a “one-China policy.” That policy “acknowledged” the PRC’s view that Taiwan was part of one China and recognized the government in Beijing as the government of mainland China. But the U.S. one-China policy maintains that the final status of Taiwan remains unresolved and must be resolved peacefully, in accordance with the wishes of the people of Taiwan. It is important to note that since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Beijing government has never controlled an inch of territory on the island of Taiwan.

The communique cited in the commentary as calling for a reduction in U.S. arm sales to Taiwan over time was, from the U.S. perspective, based on the assumption that the PRC would only use peaceful means to achieve unification with Taiwan. Under U.S. law (the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979), the United States must provide “necessary, defensive weapons” to Taiwan. In recent years, however, the PRC has engaged in a massive coercion campaign against Taiwan, including military exercises simulating invasions or blockades, cyber-attacks and a constant barrage of disinformation. The need for arms sales to Taiwan has thus increased as the threat against Taiwan from the PRC has increased.

The author misleads readers when she asserts that “any attempt to alter the status quo will be met with a firm response.” She implies that any “firm” actions by China would be in response to moves by Taiwan toward independence. In fact, it is Beijing that has announced its intent to change the status quo. In 2005 China passed a law saying it would be justified in using force against Taiwan absent insufficient progress toward unification. This June, China provided guidelines for implementing that law saying that pro-independence leaders in Taiwan could be tried in their absence by a Chinese court and sentenced to death if convicted.

In contrast, neither Taiwan President Lai Ching-te, nor any of Taiwan’s major opposition parties, nor the Taiwan public support a move toward independence. Like Taiwan’s government, they all support maintaining the status quo, where Taiwan is allowed to retain its democratic system.

In other words, China has a policy calling for the use of force if necessary to change the status quo and put Taiwan and its 23 million people under Beijing’s direct rule. That is what creates the real danger to “the stability of East Asia and the future of international diplomacy.”

James F. Moriarty, of Makiki, is a retired U.S. ambassador and was chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, 2016-2023.