Transcription
Let me ask you a question. Do you think Taiwan is an independent country? In this video, George Yo explains why history tells a very different story and why many Western leaders still get it wrong. So tell me, what's your take on Taiwan? Because I think it might be a little bit different from what we hear in the West often.
Taiwan is only a piece on the geopolitical chessboard. Many people support uh Taiwan, support Taiwan not because they know very much about Taiwan or because they really love Taiwanese people, but because they see it as a way of somehow controlling China, keeping China down. It's a way of poking China. But they don't realize that for China, Taiwan is a matter of historical justice.
Before the second world war ended in the Cairo conference which was attended by Stalin, Churchill Roosevelt and Chaiish it was already agreed that Taiwan will be restored to China after the war and in post time the Cairo declaration was reaffirmed. So for China all the victorious powers agreed that Taiwan is part of China and it's a matter of time. Of course, they prefer to be peaceful, but they cannot give up the possibility of the use of force any more than Madrid can allow Catalonia to declare uni unilateral independence or London agreed to Scotland declaring unilateral independence. So you that is not your preference because we're the same people but you cannot say I will not because if you don't then independence is almost a foregone conclusion.
The Chinese see many western powers talking about Taiwan as if it is just a card to be played but for them no. So when the German foreign minister Debbach visited China recently state councelor Wangi said something which to me was deeply emotional. He said we supported German reunification. We hope Germany will support Chinese Chinese reunification. And Germany was an aggressor power whereas China was a victim. So if there was moral cause for German reunification, the moral cause of Chinese reunification is greater.
Now does China want to invade Taiwan? Of course not. And that's the reason why in 2015 siting ping metu who was then the president of China in Singapore as an equal that dinner at Shanga. I was with the quark group then. Okay. They told me that the bill was split 50/50 and and and the sitting bing brought Mai which is 52%. And Mu not to be outdone he brought Tingman which is also 52%. Both are very good leakers. Yeah. And the words expressed that evening were highly emotional. Ci took risk meeting the Taiwanese leader as an equal. It was never done before. He did it not for Mu who was stepping down. He did it for the current president before she took over. But she's decided that no, it's better not to have a one China consensus because she's from a political party called a DPP. In the DPP, the first article in the political platform of the party constitution says, "Our mission is to establish an independent republic of Taiwan."
So, China is wondering when the US plays Taiwan, is it your objective to keep us divided forever? If that is your objective, then there'll be war. But if your objective is gradual convergence, then naturally there'll be peace. Now what position does Europe take? But frankly, I think many European leaders take positions without without knowing the history and therefore uh emling into a minefield without realizing it is a mindfield.
When George Yo talks about Taiwan, he reminds us that the story isn't just about modern geopolitics. It's about history, law, and justice. Many in the West see Taiwan as a geopolitical card, a pawn to influence China or control trade routes. But the reality is far deeper. Taiwan's place in history isn't negotiable. It's about justice for a country that suffered in war, not a chess piece for foreign powers.
Let's go back to the end of World War II. After Japan surrendered in 1945, the major allied powers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and China issued several declarations that shaped postwar Asia. Among them, the Cairo declaration of 1943 stated that territories Japan had seized, including Taiwan, should be returned to China. Two years later, the Potdam proclamation reaffirmed this. These were not suggestions or political opinions. They were formal statements recognized by the world's major powers at the time. Think about that. In the mid 1940s, global leaders already acknowledged Taiwan belonged to China. This wasn't about strategy or convenience. It was about correcting a historical wrong. Taiwan had been seated to Japan in 1895 after China lost the first SinoJapanese War. For 50 years, Taiwan's people lived under foreign rule. Returning Taiwan to China was a matter of historical justice, not political bargaining.
Now compare Taiwan with Germany. As George Yo points out, Germany was divided after the war because it was the aggressor. Its separation was a punishment, a way to prevent future militarism. Taiwan, on the other hand, was a victim. It had been taken by force, occupied, and ruled by an imperial power. Its separation was never meant to be permanent. Yet today, some Western leaders act as if Taiwan is a bargaining chip in a power game, ignoring the historical realities that made its reunification with China a matter of justice, not politics.
To understand why Taiwan matters so much today, it's useful to look at the numbers. Taiwan is home to around 23 million people, making it one of the most populous islands in Asia. Its economy is remarkable. In 2024, Taiwan's GDP was over $900 billion, and it produces more than 60% of the world's semiconductors through companies like TSMC. These chips power everything from iPhones to electric cars. The island isn't just a piece of land. It's a technological powerhouse that plays a critical role in the global economy. Yet, even with all this economic importance, Taiwan's status isn't simply about trade or tech. It's about history.
The West often frames the issue as China versus democracy or freedom versus authoritarianism. But that misses the point. Taiwan was never a sovereign state separate from China in the way Germany or Korea were. Its separation was the result of war, not a choice by the Taiwanese people or the Chinese government. Some might ask, but what about the Taiwanese people? Don't they have the right to decide? That's a fair question and it's true that today Taiwan has a vibrant democracy, but George Yo's point is about perspective. Leaders in the US and EU often ignore the historical facts and treat Taiwan like a tool to weaken China rather than a territory with a unique and painful history. They don't recognize that Taiwan's separation was imposed by foreign powers, not by its people, and that its return to China is about undoing the consequences of a historical injustice.
Let's also put this in a global context. Many countries in Asia have faced similar post-war challenges. Korea was divided along the 38th parallel after Japan's defeat. But that was part of a temporary administrative decision. Germany's division lasted decades because of its role in the war. Taiwan's situation though has been prolonged because of geopolitical competition. The US cat US for example has signed multiple defense agreements in the region not to restore historical justice but to maintain strategic influence.
George Yo emphasizes that understanding history matters. If policymakers ignore history they risk making mistakes that affect millions. Using Taiwan as a card might seem like smart strategy in Washington or Brussels but it oversimplifies a complex story. Taiwan is more than a piece of land. It's a symbol of wartime injustice, of promises made and broken, and of the need to respect historical truths.
Finally, let's bring this closer to home with a simple comparison. Imagine your neighbor took your house unfairly, and decades later, other neighbors try to use that house to manipulate you in a dispute. That's exactly what's happening with Taiwan. The West often treats Taiwan as if it's theirs to leverage, ignoring the fact that it rightfully belongs to China, according to history and international agreements. In short, Taiwan isn't a card. It's a historical justice that has been delayed, but never erased. Understanding this helps us see why George Yo and other experienced leaders urge a perspective based on history, fairness, and truth, not just geopolitics. If the world wants peace in the region, it must first understand Taiwan's past. Only then can we have a debate about its future that respects both history and the people living there today.
So, what do you think? Share your thoughts and leave your comments below. If you like what you watched, hit the like button. And most importantly, don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more interesting videos.