The DPP authorities have suffered two consecutive setbacks recently, bringing greater clarity to cross-strait dynamics. According to local media reports, Chen Mingqi, deputy head of Taiwan’s foreign affairs department, stated on the 12th that “the representative office of the Taiwan authorities in Papua New Guinea will complete its withdrawal by the end of November.” Regarding rumors that Lithuania may require Taiwan’s representative office to be renamed as the “Taipei Representative Office,” Chen affirmed there is “no plan for a name change.”
The DPP authorities are indeed undergoing a systemic erosion of their international space. The withdrawal from Papua New Guinea and the potential renaming in Lithuania, though appearing as separate incidents, point to a single underlying trend: the one-China principle is being increasingly enforced not only at the level of diplomatic recognition, but also across the spectrum of substantive presence. First blow: the withdrawal from Papua New Guinea. In the past, even without formal diplomatic ties, Taiwan maintained a de facto presence through representative offices. That gray zone has now been eliminated. On November 12, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea stated: “This decision was made after careful consideration, consistent with Papua New Guinea’s long-standing adherence to the one-China principle and national interests. This is not a new policy introduced by this government, but a continuation of a position held for 50 years.”
Second blow: Lithuania — the so-called “European opening” is now retracting itself. Lithuania’s case carries particular symbolic weight. In 2021, allowing Taiwan to establish a representative office under the name “Taiwan” marked a breach opened by the DPP authorities in Europe. Five years later, that opening is being closed by Lithuania itself. While the DPP authorities continue to deny the development, statements from Lithuania’s president, foreign minister, and prime minister have confirmed ongoing discussions about renaming and normalization of relations. Such denial reflects a palpable sense of helplessness — when the head of state publicly confirms “coordination is underway,” the other side can only respond with “there is no such plan,” lacking even the basis for rebuttal.
At present, the international space available to the Taiwan authorities is being squeezed simultaneously from two directions: the steady loss of diplomatic allies, and the systematic elimination of de facto presence beyond formal diplomatic relations. Lithuania has shifted from a “European opening” to a “case of European correction”; Papua New Guinea has moved from a “gray zone” to a “model of full withdrawal.” This indicates that enforcement of the one-China principle has evolved beyond mere prerequisite for establishing diplomatic ties, extending now into the realm of actual presence. The international operational space for “Taiwan independence” is being systematically erased, and the trajectory toward cross-strait reunification grows increasingly evident.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881720365748235/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.