For decades, Beijing has repeated a single mantra meant to shape the world’s understanding of China’s political geography: “One Country, Two Systems.” Views the 1992 Consensus. It is presented as a principle of unity through diversity — a way to preserve different ways of life under a single national roof. But beneath its rhetorical elegance lies a contradiction that reveals the truth Beijing refuses to admit. The moment you have two systems, you no longer have one country.
This paradox defines the modern reality of China and Taiwan. The phrase “One Country, Two Systems,” originally conceived by Deng Xiaoping for Hong Kong and Macau, was later marketed as a model for Taiwan’s “peaceful reunification.” Yet the phrase itself betrays its purpose. It tries to make two incompatible truths coexist: centralized political sovereignty and institutional independence. It promises autonomy but demands submission. And in that contradiction, Beijing inadvertently exposes the very thing it denies: that there are not one, but two countries across the Taiwan Strait.
The Logic Beijing Can’t Escape
If there is truly one country, there can be only one system, one rule of law, one set of institutions, one governing logic. A system defines the political soul of a nation. To have two systems means to have two separate governing logics, two political realities that do not converge.
China’s system is built upon one-party rule under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Taiwan’s is founded on democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law. The two are not variations within a single constitutional framework, they are opposites. Beijing cannot extend its sovereignty without destroying the other system, and Taipei cannot preserve its system without rejecting Beijing’s authority.
That is the core contradiction: the coexistence of two systems necessarily requires two sovereignties. You cannot legislate democracy in Taipei and autocracy in Beijing under the same national constitution. You cannot hold free elections in one province and one-party rule in another without acknowledging that these are, in fact, separate polities.
Two Realities
In practice, the “one country” claim collapses before the simplest facts. China and Taiwan each have their own government, military, bureaucracy, and foreign policy. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) (ROC) are not parallel administrations under a single state, they are rival governments exercising complete and exclusive authority over their respective territories.
Taiwan’s government conducts its own diplomacy, negotiates trade agreements, issues passports, and maintains overseas missions under various names. Its armed forces defend its borders with no command or coordination from Beijing. No Chinese court, police officer, or political party has jurisdiction in Taiwan. That alone defines de facto sovereignty.
Beijing can repeat “one China” as a political incantation, but it cannot alter this reality. The PRC does not control Taiwan’s territory, population, or institutions. International law recognizes that sovereignty ultimately depends on effective governance, and by that standard, Taiwan is a fully functioning state.
The Currency Test
Nothing reveals sovereignty more clearly than money. Currency is not merely an economic tool; it is the signature of political independence. Every sovereign state issues its own money, sets its own interest rates, and conducts its own fiscal policy.
China’s currency is the Renminbi (RMB), issued by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC). Taiwan’s is the New Taiwan Dollar (NTD), issued by the Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan). They are not interchangeable, nor are they governed by a unified policy. Each reflects a separate economic system, a separate reserve, and a separate political authority.
If China and Taiwan were truly “one country,” they would share a single currency, a single central bank, and one unified market. Instead, the world’s financial system recognizes two. Investors, banks, and corporations treat them as distinct economies, because they are.
Currency is the purest evidence of sovereignty precisely because it cannot be faked. You can stage summits, sign memoranda, or make grand speeches about unity, but you cannot share a currency without sharing the state behind it. “Two Systems” has become “Two Currencies,” and two currencies, in turn, mean two nations.
The Visa Test
Another everyday reality that underlines the separation is border control and visa regimes. For foreigners, entry into Taiwan and entry into mainland China are subject to distinct immigration rules, administered by different authorities.
On the Taiwan side: The Bureau of Consular Affairs states that foreigners must obtain a visa or qualifying authorization to enter Taiwan unless they are citizens of visa-exempt countries. Boca On the China side: According to Chinese visa policy, entry into mainland China is regulated under its own system and, notably, the PRC does not accept ROC passports for direct entry; Taiwan citizens must apply for a separate “Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Residents“.
In short: if you hold a Taiwanese visa, you cannot enter China under the same regime. If you hold a Chinese visa, it does not entitle you to enter Taiwan without satisfying Taiwan’s separate visa policy. The existence of two distinct visa systems, enforced by authorities with sovereign power, is a direct indication that there are two countries, not one.
Representation, law enforcement, entry control, all remain separate. The “two systems” slogan may try to blur the boundary, but the visa offices and the passport stamps do not.
The Economic Frontier of Identity
Taiwan’s economic independence is not accidental; it is strategic. Since the late 20th century, Taipei has built one of Asia’s most advanced economies - open, high-tech, globally integrated, and stable. Its central bank operates independently, its currency trades freely, and its financial markets obey no order from Beijing.
Meanwhile, the Renminbi remains under capital controls, tightly managed by Beijing’s central planners. The two systems operate on opposite economic philosophies: one trusts the market and the rule of law, the other depends on state intervention and political loyalty.
This divergence has created two distinct identities. Taiwan’s prosperity and openness reinforce its sense of nationhood. Its citizens travel freely, work in global industries, and participate in international civil society. China’s closed political system, by contrast, defines citizenship as obedience to the Party. The deeper this divide grows, the more absurd the claim of “one country” becomes.
Hong Kong’s Lesson
The collapse of Hong Kong’s autonomy destroyed the last illusion of “One Country, Two Systems.” For years, Beijing pointed to Hong Kong as a model for Taiwan, proof that separate systems could coexist under Chinese sovereignty. But when Hong Kong’s democratic movement challenged central authority, Beijing’s response was swift and unambiguous: the national security law of 2020 (among other measures) effectively ended “two systems” in that territory.
Hong Kong’s experience became Taiwan’s warning. If Beijing could not tolerate dissent in a city it had promised autonomy, how could it respect democracy on an island it considers rebellious? The answer is obvious: the phrase “One Country, Two Systems” was never a blueprint for coexistence; it was a strategy for gradual assimilation.
By turning Hong Kong into another mainland city, Beijing demonstrated what “one country” truly means - the subordination of every system, institution, and freedom to the rule of the Party.
The World’s Quiet Recognition
Despite diplomatic ambiguity, the world already behaves as though there are two countries. Taiwan trades independently, signs agreements (even if sometimes under variant names), and participates in global supply chains as a separate entity. It has its own internet domain (.tw), airline code, customs system, and postal network. International law firms, banks, and corporations run operations in Taiwan under its jurisdiction, not Beijing’s.
In every practical sense, the international system recognizes the reality it avoids stating openly. The United Nations seat that once belonged to the ROC now belongs to the PRC (via Resolution 2758 in 1971), but that political shift did not erase the other government. It only created a dual reality - two Chinas, one recognized de jure, the other de facto.
The contradiction persists because many nations, especially in the West, rely on “strategic ambiguity.” Yet ambiguity does not change geography or governance. The physical, legal, and economic existence of Taiwan proves what Beijing’s slogans try to hide. If two systems exist, then each requires its own representation, two chairs at every international institution, two flags in every forum. Anything less violates the very idea of “two systems.” To deny Taiwan a seat is to pretend its system does not exist, even as the world interacts with it daily. The irony is that by insisting on the phrase, Beijing has already admitted the truth. “Two systems” means two governments, two economies, two currencies, and therefore, two nations.
The Symbolism of Separation
At the heart of this issue lies a philosophical point about political identity. Nations are not defined solely by territory, but by the systems that govern their people. A country is an agreement among citizens about who rules, how power is distributed, and which laws are obeyed.
China and Taiwan have two separate agreements, two visions of citizenship, two definitions of freedom, two historical memories. One system is built on control; the other on consent. No slogan can unite these contradictions without erasing one side completely.
The phrase “One Country, Two Systems” was meant to soften Beijing’s power, to present control as coexistence. But in the age of global information and economic transparency, language cannot disguise political reality. Systems define nations. Once there are two, there can no longer be one.
The Unspoken Truth
Beijing continues to proclaim that “the reunification of China is inevitable.” Yet the world already lives with the opposite truth, that two systems mean two countries, existing side by side, unequal in size but equal in sovereignty of spirit.
Taiwan does not need to declare independence; it embodies it. Its system, its currency, its democracy, and its freedom speak louder than any proclamation. Each day that the New Taiwan Dollar circulates, that a free election is held, that an independent court rules, the principle of “Two Systems, Two Countries” is reaffirmed.
Beijing may own the slogan, but Taiwan owns the reality.
Raghu Kondori
Iranian-French Author | Founder of Shahvand Think Tank
