The three separatisms China is facing are Tibet independence, Xinjiang independence and Taiwan independence. But before discussing any further, let us uphold a principle, namely, a country’s territory can expand or contract by gaining or losing land according to the rise or fall of its national strength.

There are too many such examples. We can for the moment take the United States as an example. At the time of its independence in 1776 from the British Empire, it had only 13 states along the Atlantic coast, which were taken away by force or trickery from the American Indians. It then expanded to the Midwest and South by driving away the aboriginals and successively defeating the French and the Spanish. It occupied fertile land south to the Gulf of Mexico and west to the Pacific, including the majestic Rocky Mountains. In 1867, the US bought Alaska which had belonged to the American Indians for thousands of years, from the hands of Russia at a cheap price. Of course, there was also Hawaii, Guam and so on. However, these were merely small changes of the US territory.

This is so, because during the past two hundred-some years the US gradually became a superpower. How about China? On the contrary, over the past two centuries it suffered bullying by powers which occupied large tracts of its soil. I still remember the critical juncture of 1978 when some Western and Japanese experts predicted that China would be split into eight sub-divisions, ruled by the warlords. But this did not happen. And as Chinese Americans, we must thank Deng Xiaoping for generations to come, because his reforming and opening up policy saved China. Unlike the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, which went headlong into democratization before economic development, they resulted into fragmentation or civil wars.  Moreover, China is rapidly becoming the second largest economy in the world, and now actually has the ability to recover sea reefs in the South China Sea and deals with the three separatisms.

Let us briefly analyze these three separatisms. First: the Tibet independence.

The Tibet independence issue is the easiest to solve, or we can say that it has essentially been resolved. The eighty-year-old Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of the Tibetans and in poor health. He has said that he did not advocate independence for Tibet. After his passing away, the Tibetan separatist forces in exile in India will decline even more. Tibet's vast tract of land is in China’s fingertips and serves as a natural defense barrier for western China. Without external support, Tibet cannot become independent. Gyalo Thondup, Dalai Lama’s elder brother and his “foreign minister”, co-wrote a book last year called The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong: The Untold Story of My Struggle for Tibet with a British writer Anne F. Thurston, which broke the news of the CIA’s involvement in Tibet and the ins and outs of the disturbances created on the Chinese border. He said, "In all my life, I have only one regret: my involvement with the CIA. Initially, I genuinely believed that the Americans wanted to help us fight for our independence. Eventually, I realized that was not true. It was misguided and wishful thinking on my part. The CIA’s goal was never independence for Tibet. In fact, I do not think that the Americans ever really even wanted to help. They just wanted to stir up trouble, using the Tibetans to create misunderstandings and discord between China and India. Eventually they were successful in that. The 1962 Sino-Indian border war was one tragic result."

When US President Richard Nixon made his unannounced visit to see Chinese leader Mao Zedong, the two countries negotiated and reached an agreement, according to which Nixon had to instruct the CIA not to encourage the Tibetan rebellions. So the Tibetan separatists in the early 1970s were already at a dead end (the Tibetans then probably had no knowledge of this; they did not understand that they were just a pawn in the game of great powers. The reason that Tibet independence has been able to drag on until recently is mainly Dalai Lama's personal charisma. But Tibet remains China's poorest and also educationally very backward region. By improving the lives of the Tibetans and educating their children, and by breaking their superstition (have you not seen how the Tibetans kowtow after walking every step to show their worship to gods?), the problem will be solved by itself.

The Xinjiang separatists are more troublesome. If you have been to Xinjiang, Gansu, Qinghai and other places not inhabited by the Han Chinese, you would have seen Uighurs or Uzbeks with light-colored skins, who look like Europeans. Among them some of the youths are likely to speak Mandarin, but with entirely foreign accents. Before the Chinese war against the Japanese invasion, the Soviet Union had thought about trying to build an East Turkestan, thereby separating Xinjiang from China and incorporating it into the Soviet federation. Fortunately, Sheng Shicai (盛世才), the Chinese warlord who ruled Xinjiang province (from April 12, 1933 to August 29, 1944) was persuaded by the Kuomintang to take side with the Republic of China (he killed Mao Zedong’s brother who went to convince Sheng to capitulate to Mao). Now, the vigorous financial support of the extreme Islam in Saudi Arabia for many years has offered free religious schools in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc., to train students for the act of jihad (striving to serve the purposes of God on this Earth).  In addition, the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wants to rebuild the Ottoman Empire. The Sunni sect of Islam - especially the Islamic extremism (adherence to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, potentially including the promotion of violence to achieve political goals) - is growing. （Ironically, the emergence of the Islamic State is also closely linked with this kind of education, and continues to receive private donations from Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries of the Persian Gulf）.  In turn, the independence commotion has also emerged in Xinjiang.

We cannot deny that the ethnic minorities in Xinjiang share a common origin and religious traditions with the “Stan” countries in Central Asia and Turkey. There exist religious, linguistic and cultural barriers with the Han Chinese. Coupled with the bias of the Han Chinese towards other ethnic minorities, and Han people’s mentality of going to Xinjiang to seek quick success and instant wealth, national integration is easier said than done. The initiative of Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road (known as One Belt, One Road or OBOR, also known as The Belt and Road) is a brilliant concept. It can open up Eurasia while at the same time integrating all the “Stan” countries. But it is a double edged sword: it may enhance the prosperity of the whole Central Asia and reduce ethnic frictions; but contrarily, it is also likely to exacerbate ethnic conflicts. In the end, what kind of consequences Xi's peaceful development and win-win policy will bring about should be a topic worthy of our earnest attention in the coming decades. However, it is certain that the Xinjiang separatists have no chance of success.

What we are most concerned about, without a doubt, is Taiwan’s independence. Tsai Ing-wen’s huge victory and the winning of majority seats by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in the Legislative Yuan have made many people think that Tsai and the DPP will be freed to pursue the goal of independence. There are even people, especially the Internet users in the Chinese mainland, who think that force must be used for resolution. These are too pessimistic or impulsive.

Taiwan has always faced two walls: the eastern wall is the Taiwan Relations Act, which essentially replaces the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China after President Jimmy Carter established diplomatic relations with the mainland of China. The Act allows the US Congress to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons, stresses that the cross-Strait issues must be resolved in a peaceful manner, and also affirms that “there is only one China, and that Taiwan is a part of China." The western wall is the Anti-Secession Law postulated in 2005 by the mainland of China against the de jure independence advocated by Taiwan’s ex-leader Chen Shui-bian. The Law basically stipulates that China will use force as a last resort if Taiwan seeks independence. In the space between the two walls, Taiwan has managed to maintain a few decades of halcyon days so that many people in Taiwan could enjoy life. If Taiwan’s newly elected political leader Tsai Ing-wen or someone else wants independence, such that the situation becomes tense, what the people in Taiwan could enjoy are likely to become great misfortunes. So, from an international point of view, Taiwan independence is definitely not an option which Tsai Ing-wen is willing to try audaciously.

However, we must admit, all of us probably have relatives and friends who moved to Taiwan after Taiwan's retrocession from the Japanese occupation, and some of them even have a military family background. After listening to them, it is astonishing to learn that their children now are also leaning to independence, and may even actively support Taiwan independence. My late professor Peter Chen (陳必照, graduated from Tunghai University in Taiwan) was on good terms with me for years. He had thick gray hair, dressed casually, did not care how he looked, treated people warmly and had a sincere scholar character. Many years ago, he came to New York to see me. I was surprised to find that he actually became the Deputy Defense Minister of Chen Shui-bian’s government (I in fact found it very funny; had Taiwan fought a war with the communist army according to his strategy, Taiwan definitely would have been finished). Moreover, I found that he and his wife (his Tunghai University classmate) were divorced, and he went back to Taiwan and married a young woman who appeared to be at least 30 years younger than him. This young woman had mainlander parents (who had moved from other provinces in the mainland to Taiwan), but was an activist in the Taiwan independence movement. So, in the open space between the eastern and the western walls, the independence tidal waves stir the island. This reality cannot be denied. It already shows a bit of the flavor of the trend. Can the waves break through the two walls? The answer is perhaps “no”, unless one of the walls is tilted or collapses. But the walls were built by the two superpowers. Will China or the US collapse?

We know that Tsai Ing-wen will inevitably carry out De-Sinicization inside Taiwan. But she is also bound to reboot the economy, and there is indeed a contradiction between the two. In order to eliminate the influence of the Chinese mainland, she is bound to join the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP; it still requires parliamentary approvals by the twelve member countries; the future is uncertain). She will also form closer trade ties and even military relations with Japan. This is placing politics ahead of the economy. It is wrong, because Taiwan's economy absolutely needs cooperation with the mainland. Therefore, what the DPP really needs is to seek a balance in order to continue to enjoy life between the two walls. The economic power of the mainland of China may twist and turn as shown in its current slowdown, but the growth is still stronger than the US, Japan and Europe. As soon as the OBOR initiative starts to produce concrete results, the United States and Japan will also try to join in. Then, where should Taiwan go? In fact, what Tsai Ing-wen should do is dealing with the economy first, and leave politics aside; be open to both sides, so do not block or favor either side. This way, Taiwan's economy will have hope. Moreover, in order to establish diplomatic relations with the mainland of China, the United States has abandoned Taiwan once, as it did the same to the Tibetans. Old tricks may be repeated in the future.