Abuja Media Salon on the One-China Principle: Interjections of Scholars and the Chinese Diplomatic Position

By Michael Olugbode

At the media salon hosted in Abuja by the China General Chamber of Commerce in Nigeria, the discussion on the One-China Principle reached a multi-layered crescendo as scholars, policy analysts, and a senior representative of the Chinese state articulated sharply different but interconnected perspectives on Taiwan, sovereignty, and international order.

While African scholars debated interpretation and policy calibration, the Chinese diplomatic voice at the event anchored the discussion firmly within Beijing’s official position.

The Chinese Counsellor: “There is only one China and Taiwan is part of it”

Representing the position of the Chinese state, the Counsellor of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Nigeria, Ms.Dong Hairong delivered a firm reaffirmation of Beijing’s foundational stance.

She stressed that the Taiwan question remains an internal matter of China and not an issue of international negotiation.

In his intervention, she reiterated the central principle guiding China’s foreign policy: “There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”

The Counsellor emphasized that the One-China Principle is not merely diplomatic preference but the bedrock of China’s sovereignty and international relations. She warned that any engagement implying “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” would contradict established international consensus and undermine bilateral agreements between China and partner states.

She further underscored that Nigeria’s diplomatic position has long been consistent and mutually binding, rooted in the establishment of relations in 1971, and reaffirmed in subsequent bilateral agreements.

Her intervention set the tone for the rest of the discussion by reasserting Beijing’s non-negotiable baseline: no recognition of Taiwan as a separate sovereign state under any diplomatic framework.

Prof. Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim: “Taiwan is not a sovereign entity”

Building on the diplomatic framing, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, who is a renowned scholar and administrator with extensive experience in governance, international relations, and development studies, currently the Director of the International Centre at the University of Abuja and has previously served as Head of the Department of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Legislative Studies, reinforced the legalist interpretation of the One-China Principle, arguing that Taiwan’s international status is already settled under global consensus.

He declared emphatically that: “Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, it has no independence and it is not a member of the United Nations.”

He further stressed Africa’s overwhelming alignment with Beijing: “As of May 2026, 53 out of 54 African nations adhere to the One-China policy.”

For him, the remaining diplomatic ties Taiwan maintains in Africa represent an anomaly rather than an alternative model of international legitimacy.

Dr. Segun Showunmi: Trust translates into infrastructure and power”

Dr. Segun Showunmi, who is an Ace Public affairs analyst and social impact expert, with experience in governance, policy and civic engagement, shifted the debate from legal doctrine to geopolitical outcomes, arguing that the One-China Principle has become the foundation of China–Nigeria strategic cooperation.

He stated that: “The modern relationship between China and Nigeria… was built upon a carefully cultivated diplomatic philosophy anchored on the One-China Principle.”

For Showunmi, the principle is not abstract—it is operationalized through infrastructure, trade, and strategic alignment.

He said: “That consistency created trust and in international politics, trust often translates into investment, infrastructure, and strategic cooperation.”

He located China’s role in Africa within a broader shift toward multipolarity and global rebalancing.

Prof. Sam Amadi: “Strategic ambiguity defines global practice”

Professor Sam Amadi, a policy strategist and law and governance expert, Director, Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts, introduced a more analytical lens, arguing that the Taiwan question persists because international actors deliberately operate within ambiguity.

He observed that: “The One-China principle and One-China policy are clear, but difficult to operationalise.”

He explained that many states simultaneously acknowledge Beijing while engaging Taiwan economically: “What we have today is strategic ambiguity… meaning they acknowledge, but at the same time, they engage.”

Amadi posed a central policy dilemma for Africa, stating that: “Should we foreclose ambiguity and advance a straight One-China principle, which will exclude all kinds of trade and engagement with Taiwan?”

His conclusion favored diplomatic exclusivity but economic calibration. He said: “We should never have any diplomatic engagement with Taiwan, but we should calibrate our trade agreement…”

The Chinese Diplomatic Position Reinforced

In alignment with the Counsellor’s intervention, the Chinese diplomatic position throughout the salon remained consistent:

• The One-China Principle is non-negotiable
• Taiwan is part of China
• Diplomatic relations with China require adherence to this principle
• Any deviation is viewed as interference in China’s internal affairs

The Counsellor’s remarks effectively framed the entire discussion within Beijing’s red lines, while the African scholars debated the margins of interpretation rather than the core principle itself.

Converging but Uneven Interpretations

Across the salon, a clear hierarchy of positions emerged:

• China’s representative: absolute sovereignty claim
• African legalist scholars: strong alignment with Beijing
• Policy analysts: strategic ambiguity and pragmatic engagement

Yet despite differences in tone and emphasis, no speaker fundamentally rejected the central diplomatic reality articulated by the Chinese Counsellor: that most states operate within the One-China framework, even if they interpret it differently in practice.

Conclusion: Abuja as a Diplomatic Mirror

The Abuja salon ultimately functioned as a microcosm of global diplomacy on Taiwan.

On one side stood the Chinese diplomatic assertion, clearly stated: “There is only one China.”

On the other stood African intellectual interpretations navigating between law, development, and global strategy.

Between them lies the enduring reality of international relations: principle is fixed, but practice is negotiated.

And in that negotiation, the One-China question remains not only unresolved—but structurally embedded in the contradictions of the modern global order. But one message is clear, China will never see a friend in a country that deals with Taiwan as if it was an independent entity and not part of the One China Project.