This may be old news, but I've been noticing recently a disheartening trend of European political figures foregoing the fluffy securities of ambiguity long ago woven into statements on "One-China" and the "status quo" and, either for their own ignorance or a willful desire for Taiwan to become a part of China, expressing the position that Taiwan is, in fact, a part of China.
Cue Nicholas Sarkozy in China:

"As far as France is concerned there is only one China and Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. France does not support the independence of Taiwan," Sarkozy said, describing Taiwan's status as part of "the turn of historical events".

But Sarkozy said the issue should be resolved by negotiation. Any unilateral initiative would be a "serious mistake", he said.

Oops.

Then there's Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who said that the "One China" policy expressly designates Taiwan as a part of China.

This ruffled the feathers of some Taiwanese ex-pats:

In their letter to Steinmeier, the Taiwanese students chided the foreign minister and said Taiwan is not and never has been a territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC).

They asked Steinmeier to explain why, if Taiwan is part of China, Taiwanese had never paid taxes to the Beijing government or why Taiwanese had never been conscripted in the People's Liberation Army.

The students also asked Steinmeier if it was possible for German nationals to obtain a visa to Taiwan by applying with the PRC embassy.

If none of the answers to the above questions were affirmative, the students said, the Federal Foreign Office should retract the statement from its official Web site and issue a public apology to Taiwanese worldwide.

In the political checkers game that is the Taiwan-China conflict, it appears that ambiguity has long been the sauce that kept China out of Taiwan and let Western governments do business with an independent Taiwan while pretending not to see it as such.

It has always been my understanding of the one-China policy that it more or less expresses the belief in one unified China without explicitly picking a side as to whether or not Taiwan was a part of that. It is perfectly normal for governments to say that they do not support the UN referendum or that they think it is wrong for Taiwan to seek independence, yet it is new, to me at least, for governments to explicitly say Taiwan is a part of China.*

Take this delightfully vague statement by President Bush in 2004:

"We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo, and the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally to change the status quo, which we oppose."

Let's forget for a moment that Taiwan is being reproached for changing the status quo while China lines its coastline with missiles and look at how laughable this statement is. You see, it sounds like he's saying something, but he's not. Like the One-China policy, the term status quo also has no meaning by virtue of the fact that its definition is clearly different if you're in Washington, Beijing or Taipei, as noted here by Dr. Alan D. Romberg

All three major players I am talking about here-the United States, the PRC, and Taiwan, say they want to maintain [the status quo]. But they all have different definitions of what "it" is, and indeed, in Taiwan itself, there are debates over the definition.

For the Mainland, the status quo is that there is "one China" of which Taiwan is an integral and indivisible part. For Taiwan, the status quo is that the ROC, or Taiwan, is a sovereign, independent state, and for the current government that means that Taiwan has no political links to the Mainland, even in principle. So, when each side speaks of maintaining the status quo, it is speaking of maintaining its own version. And while they use the same words, their meanings are completely different and, in the most basic respects, contradictory.

What about the United States? One of the important tenets of American policy, first expressed by the Clinton Administration but taken up again by the George W. Bush Administration, is that neither side should seek to unilaterally change the status quo. By that we mean that neither side should upset peace and stability in the region, including by threat or provocation or by seeking to impose its version of the status quo on the other side or on the international community.

You may be familiar with a statement made during congressional testimony in April 2004 by then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James Kelly. He said that the United States supports the status quo "as we define it." Many in Taiwan complained that the United States had no right to define the status quo that was all about their present and future situation or to impose an American definition that prevented Taiwan from asserting its sovereign status. Besides, Taipei argued, it is Beijing, not Taipei, that seeks to change the status quo by pressuring Taiwan to abandon its sovereign, independent status and to unify with the Mainland.

While I lament the fact that countries around the world won't support the reality that is an independent Taiwan, I understand to some extent their reasons for not doing so. Yet, I find it disheartening, to see more and more European officials eschewing what is obviously true and espousing what is clearly not an accurate depiction of the situation between Taiwan and China. I don't know if they do this for lack of understanding about the situation or if they truly have decided that it is in their own best interests to side with China on the matter, against Taiwan, but it's a shame.

* I'm talking about the Taiwan we've come to know over the last two decades or so. The Taiwan that no longer officially claims to be the sole government of all of China. I know the old One-China policy claimed Taiwan to be a part of China, because the KMT was in Taiwan and called itself the rightful governor of all of China. Now, to my knowledge, all factions in Taiwan have relinquished the belief that they will someday retake the "mainland." That's not to say that there aren't still those who support unification within the KMT, of course.