One China policy and the limits of diplomacy

Kang Jun-young

The author is a professor at the Graduate School of International and Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

The “one China” issue, a persistent obstacle in Korea-China relations, has resurfaced in Korea. A dispute over the name "Taiwan Pavilion" at the privately organized 16th Gwangju Biennale escalated into a diplomatic controversy following Chinese protests, imposing unnecessary costs. The episode raises a fundamental question about how Korea should interpret its diplomatic commitments while recognizing the sensitivity surrounding Taiwan, even in private exchanges.

Beyond growing tensions across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan has become a sensitive subject in international diplomacy, including US-China summit meetings. Beijing regards references to Taiwan that challenge its position as violations of the one-China principle and threats to its “core interests.” Thus, a cultural event became a diplomatic dispute despite Seoul's explanation that it does not directly control a private foundation's activities.

More troubling is China's expanding pressure on local governments and public foundations, institutions poorly equipped to manage diplomatic risks. The Gwangju controversy illustrates the dilemma. Organizers initially changed the pavilion name to that of the National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts, then restored “Taiwan Pavilion” following objections from Taiwan. Chinese artists subsequently withdrew from the biennale. Such disputes place cultural organizers between competing political demands, even when their primary responsibility is to present exhibitions rather than conduct foreign policy. They also risk disrupting relationships built through years of artistic cooperation.

China insists that the People's Republic of China is the “sole legal government of China” and that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory. Most countries establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing, including the United States, Japan and Korea, have recognized the former claim. But their language concerning Taiwan has been deliberately different.

Some governments have used “take note” or “acknowledge,” while Japan employed “fully understand,” leaving legal acceptance distinct from diplomatic recognition. In its 1992 communiqué establishing relations with Beijing, Korea said it “respects” China's position on Taiwan, wording closer to diplomatic accommodation than explicit agreement on Taiwan's legal status.

China did not always emphasize the one-China principle as strongly as it does today. It formalized its position through white papers issued in 1993, “The Taiwan Question and Reunification of China,” and in 2000, “The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue.”

The problem is Beijing's retrospective reinterpretation of earlier diplomatic documents, treating all countries maintaining relations with China as having accepted its entire principle. In joint statements with some developing countries, China has gone further, securing language supporting its efforts toward national reunification.

This increasingly rigid approach now extends to Korea. Seoul maintains a flexible distinction: The state honors its diplomatic commitments while refraining from interfering in practical economic and cultural cooperation. Beijing, however, seeks to apply the one-China principle across political, economic, social and cultural activities alike. Repeated diplomatic disputes over Taiwan reflect that widening interpretation.

In a liberal democracy, cultural events organized by local authorities or private institutions do not fall under direct central government control. Failure to understand differences in political systems can turn relatively minor issues into unnecessary confrontations.

Pressure accompanied by threats of diplomatic retaliation over exhibition names or cultural events inevitably appears excessive to the other country and can damage public sentiment. A rigid diplomatic approach that discourages private exchanges ultimately serves neither side.

Continuing private exchanges does not mean expanding formal diplomatic recognition. Conversely, a concession that appears insignificant in isolation can become difficult to reverse once repeated decisions establish a precedent.

The government must honor its diplomatic agreements while drawing a clear boundary against extending those obligations to nonpolitical exchanges conducted by private organizations and local governments. International conventions should guide names and forms of address in economic and cultural exchanges, while respect for independent artistic decisions should be formally institutionalized nationwide.

Without consistent principles and standards, pressure will recur and concessions will accumulate into accepted practice. Any ambiguity in Korea's interpretation of its one-China commitments invites persistent demands from both Beijing and Taipei, creating additional diplomatic burdens.

Government officials and private institutions must therefore recognize the stakes, cooperate closely and establish clear, consistent standards defining Korea's position. Only then can they prevent similar disputes without sacrificing either diplomatic commitments or the autonomy essential to cultural exchange.