The question of whether the "One China" policy is outdated in today's geopolitical landscape is a hotly debated one, with strong arguments on both sides.

There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer, as its relevance depends heavily on one's perspective and priorities.

Arguments for the "One China" Policy Being Outdated:

1. Taiwan's Democratic Evolution:

   • Self-Governance: Taiwan has evolved into a vibrant, independent democracy with its own distinct government, military, economy, and foreign policy. The people of Taiwan have the right to self-determination and have repeatedly expressed a desire to maintain their distinct identity and democratic way of life, separate from the PRC.

   • Lack of PRC Control: The PRC has never governed Taiwan. The "One China" policy largely ignores the de facto reality of Taiwan's separate and self-governing existence for over 70 years.

   • Rejection of "One Country, Two Systems": The deteriorating situation in Hong Kong has further solidified Taiwan's rejection of Beijing's "One Country, Two Systems" framework, which is the PRC's proposed model for unification.

2. China's Increased Assertiveness:

   • Military Threats: China's increasingly aggressive military drills, air incursions, and rhetoric towards Taiwan are seen as undermining the very "peace and stability" the "One China" policy was meant to preserve. The policy, from this view, no longer serves its original purpose of managing cross-Strait tensions peacefully.

   • Diplomatic Pressure: Beijing's relentless diplomatic and economic pressure on countries and international organizations to isolate Taiwan is seen as heavy-handed and counterproductive, highlighting the coercive nature of the "One China" principle.

   • "Hollowing Out" of the Policy: Some argue that China's actions, particularly its insistence on its "One China Principle" (which asserts PRC sovereignty over Taiwan) rather than the more ambiguous "One China Policy" (which acknowledges but doesn't necessarily endorse Beijing's claim), are effectively hollowing out the original diplomatic understanding.

3. Changed Global Landscape:

   • U.S.-China Strategic Competition: The geopolitical context has shifted from engagement to strategic competition between the U.S. and China. The "One China" policy was designed in an era of different strategic priorities.

   • Taiwan's Economic Importance: Taiwan's critical role in the global supply chain, especially in advanced semiconductors, makes its stability a global economic imperative. Relying on an outdated policy that risks this stability is seen as problematic.

   • Human Rights and Democratic Values: For many democratic nations, upholding democratic values and human rights aligns more closely with supporting Taiwan's self-determination than maintaining a policy that allows an authoritarian regime to claim sovereignty over a thriving democracy.

Arguments for the "One China" Policy Remaining Relevant (or Necessary):

1. Maintaining Peace and Stability:

   • Deterring War: The "One China" policy, particularly the U.S. version (which recognizes the PRC but only "acknowledges" its claim over Taiwan and insists on peaceful resolution), has been credited with preventing outright conflict in the Taiwan Strait for decades. Abandoning it could be seen as an immediate trigger for war.

   • Strategic Ambiguity: The ambiguity inherent in the "One China" policy allows both Beijing to save face (by maintaining its claim) and Taiwan to operate as a de facto independent entity, while giving other powers diplomatic room to maneuver without provoking a direct conflict.

   • Risk of Miscalculation: Any radical shift away from the "One China" policy could be perceived by Beijing as an ultimate provocation, leading to irreversible military action.

2. China's Unwavering Resolve:

   • Core National Interest: Taiwan is a core national interest for China, tied to its national pride, historical grievances, and the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. China has repeatedly stated it will not tolerate formal independence for Taiwan and will use force if necessary. No amount of international pressure is likely to change this fundamental stance.

   • Domestic Legitimacy: For the CCP, "reunification" with Taiwan is a key pillar of its legitimacy and its "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation." Abandoning the "One China" policy would be seen as an intolerable challenge to the Party's rule.

3. Diplomatic and Economic Practicality:

   • Global Recognition: Most countries in the world have chosen to recognize the PRC over the ROC (Taiwan) because of China's immense economic and political weight. The "One China" policy provides a framework for maintaining relations with both entities, albeit unofficially with Taiwan.

   • Avoiding Economic Fallout: A complete dismantling of the "One China" policy by a major power could lead to devastating economic retaliation from China, which many nations are not prepared to endure.

4. International Law Interpretation:

   • UN Resolution 2758: While debated, UN Resolution 2758, which removed the ROC from the UN and seated the PRC, is interpreted by Beijing (and accepted by many nations for diplomatic convenience) as solidifying the "One China" principle.

Conclusion:

The "One China" policy is arguably strained and challenged by today's geopolitical realities, particularly Taiwan's vibrant democracy and China's growing assertiveness. Many critics argue it is indeed outdated and fails to reflect the reality on the ground or protect Taiwan's aspirations.

However, despite its perceived flaws and the moral ambiguities it creates, the policy remains the de facto framework that has, for decades, allowed for a degree of peace and managed the immense tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Abandoning it without a clear, internationally agreed-upon alternative that Beijing would accept carries an extremely high risk of triggering a catastrophic conflict.

Therefore, while many recognize its imperfections and the increasing pressure on its viability, the "One China" policy (in its various interpretations) continues to be seen by many global powers as a necessary, if increasingly fragile, tool for strategic stability in a highly volatile region. The debate is less about whether it should be outdated, and more about whether the international community can safely move beyond it without igniting a major war.