Beijing scholars map out Taiwan's post-reunification governance, including force

The Star

20-07-2025

As tensions between Beijing and Taipei rise, academia and the education sector reveal how each side is changing to adapt to – or shape – the new environment. In the first of a two-part series, we survey the vast research by mainland academics studying potential paths and models for governing the island.
For decades, Beijing has talked about peaceful reunification with Taiwan and possibly governing it under the arrangement of 'one country, two systems', a term that means the island could have a different political system than the mainland.
The idea was first proposed by late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and written into the constitution as a legal foundation for future governance of Taiwan in 1982.
Generations of Chinese leaders have shared their broad vision of how post-reunification governance would look for the island, including its military and political parties.
Yet it was only under President Xi Jinping – or more specifically since Xi made a key speech on the matter of Taiwan in January 2019 – that detailed discussion of the issue picked up in public, including from policy advisers and academics.
The growth in the discussion took place as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government in Taiwan continued to push the island towards pro-independence, and Washington kept up its support for Taiwan amid competition with Beijing.
Many recommendations published in state-affiliated academic journals specifically on the subject of Taiwan have drawn lessons from Hong Kong – which saw massive anti-government protests in 2019 – and emphasised Beijing's direct authority, national security education and vetting of senior government officials.
While most of the proposals have been based on the presumption of reunification via peaceful means, there is a growing amount of work by mainland Chinese scholars on what it might look like to govern the island if the unification cannot be achieved through peaceful negotiation, as Beijing steps up its contingency preparations against growing risks of separatist movements on the island.
There is no evidence that the discussions reflect a shift in Beijing's previously stated principles on the issue, nor the fact that Beijing has not set a timetable for it.
But some experts say discussions about governing Taiwan published by state-affiliated scholars in state-endorsed publications mark a change from Beijing's previous defensive position of deterring independence to a more proactive promotion of reunification with the island.
And those discussions, they say, may provide policy options for Beijing, which has a level of deniability regarding the messaging and says it retains the ultimate power to choose what to do with Taiwan.
Paper trail
The South China Morning Post reviewed academic papers from four major journals specifically on the subject of Taiwan studies and published on the mainland since 2013, when Xi became president. The survey reveals a noticeable increase since 2019 in consideration of a 'one country, two systems' framework specifically for Taiwan.
In January that year, Xi had for the first time called for 'exploring a 'two systems' solution to the Taiwan question' and to 'enrich efforts towards peaceful reunification'.
Although Beijing has remained tight-lipped over its preferred timeline for reunification and ideas about the governance structure of the island, mainland China's academic world is studying different options.
A review of titles and abstracts of papers in the four journals finds that at least 42 published since 2019 specifically address the topic – a sharp increase on the six papers on the topic published between 2013 and 2018. It is not clear what the exact reason is behind the increase.
The papers, accessible on mainland China's largest academic research database CNKI, are from four key journals run by leading government-backed think tanks, which may hint at Beijing's focus and possible pathways on the Taiwan issue.
They include Taiwan Studies, a bimonthly journal put out by the mainland's most important Taiwan-related think tank, the Beijing-based Institute of Taiwan Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
The other three are: Cross-Taiwan Strait Studies under the Shanghai Institute for Taiwan Studies; the Taiwan Research Journal under the Taiwan Research Centre of Xiamen University in Fujian province; and Studies on Fujian-Taiwan Relations under the Fujian Institute of Governance.
Beyond the select journals, the overall number of papers featuring the search phrase 'two-system solution to Taiwan', a term that is also mentioned by top leaders, saw a moderate peak in 2020, followed by a notable surge between 2022 and 2023, according to a summary of data available on CNKI.
It is believed that mainland scholars also make policy recommendations through channels and publications not accessible to the public, including on the Taiwan issue. But it is not possible to assess those internal discussions.
One common suggestion seen in the papers reviewed is that the governance framework for Taiwan should draw, to some extent, on lessons from the Hong Kong model. Another key argument is that the level of autonomy granted should still provide the central government with sufficient flexibility to intervene when necessary.
In academic writing on the mainland, there has been discussion of a greater number of Taiwanese delegates joining the National People's Congress, the country's top legislature, to articulate local interests.
Several scholars advocated for local governance to be led by patriots, echoing the approach implemented in Hong Kong. One study suggested 'Taiwan-style socialism' could be adopted as the island needed to 'quickly align with the mainland system' to avoid problems caused by their differences.
Similar discussions on governance have been raised on some other platforms on the mainland, and also in Taiwan.
In August last year, the mainland Chinese research institute the Cross-Strait Institute of Urban Planning at Xiamen University proposed that Beijing establish a 'shadow government', saying it was 'imperative to prepare a plan for the comprehensive takeover of Taiwan after reunification'.
In March, Peking University scholar Li Yuhu, who is also a deputy to the national legislature, warned that Taiwan might lose the high degree of autonomy previously on offer if it had to be reunited with the mainland by force.
'If Taiwan moves towards separation or resists reunification, and the mainland government still needs to complete reunification, the arrangement may be downgraded, even to the level of Taiwan province,' he said.
Scholars from Taiwan are joining that discussion.
At a forum in Shanghai in May, Zhong Qin, a senior research fellow at the Asia Pacific Research Foundation in Taiwan, suggested that the concept of 'practical reunification' – through actual implementation of governance – could be an alternative approach, avoiding a prolonged wait or abrupt changes in the event of non-peaceful scenarios.
In December, former Taiwanese legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng proposed the concept of 'separate governance without division' so Taiwan and mainland China could coexist while maintaining separate governance yet 'share undivided sovereignty'.
It is not clear if any of these proposals are supported by the public, especially in Taiwan.
According to the latest survey published by Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council in April, 84.4 per cent of respondents remain opposed to the 'one country, two systems' concept, consistent with previous quarterly survey results.
More than 85 per cent of those surveyed said they preferred maintaining the status quo, including 36 per cent favouring its permanent preservation.
Lessons from Hong Kong
In Beijing's latest official white paper on Taiwan in 2022, it credited the implementation of the one country, two system concept in Hong Kong as a 'resounding success'. But in policy discussions, mainland intellectuals said the city offered a number of lessons for the potential governance of Taiwan.
A paper by Wu Libin, associate professor at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, published in 2022, argues that Taiwan should be granted authorised autonomy – similar to Hong Kong's model – to give Beijing 'greater flexibility and legal grounds' to intervene when necessary or otherwise risk 'overly rigid constraints on central authority'.
A paper published last year, written by Zhang Jian, a senior research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, suggested the framework should implement the idea of 'patriots governing Taiwan', a view also seen in several other studies.
Beijing responded to Hong Kong's months-long anti-government protests in 2019 by imposing a national security law on the city, followed by an overhaul of the electoral system to ensure social stability and safeguard national security, with the principle of only patriots ruling the city.
Zhang argues that the governance plan for Taiwan 'should include sound legislation on central authorities' powers in areas such as national defence, the judiciary, education and national security'.
'The experience and lessons from the Hong Kong case show that relevant laws must be designed and established before reunification to ensure that after reunification the central government's powers are protected through strong legal frameworks,' Zhang argued.
Another study published this year by scholars from Xiamen University cited the national security law in Hong Kong, suggesting that efforts should focus on introducing a new criminal law in Taiwan to target separatist activities.
Non-peaceful means
While most of the papers in the journals focus on peaceful reunification, there is a rising number of studies mentioning the possibility of non-peaceful scenarios. Many discussed the Anti-Secession Law that provides a legal framework for Beijing to use non-peaceful means.
In general, a search on CNKI identifies 76 papers published since 2019 mentioning non-peaceful options compared to 21 papers published between 2013 and 2018. There is no clearly stated reason, but it could be a reflection of the perceived threat by Beijing of the growing risks of separatist movements in Taiwan and the attempt by the US and its allies to use the issue to destabilise China.
A closer review finds at least six studies published since 2022 that feature more detailed discussion. Two specifically focus on the premise of non-peaceful scenarios and suggest detailed proposals – including deploying People's Liberation Army (PLA) forces to the island.
Since Taiwanese leader William Lai Ching-te took office in May last year, he has repeatedly asserted that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait 'are not subordinate to each other', drawing fierce condemnation from Beijing – especially after he described mainland China in March as a 'foreign hostile force', an unprecedented escalation in cross-strait rhetoric.
Amid heightened tensions, a paper by a mainland researcher published this year on non-peaceful means attracted attention.
Wang Heting, a professor at Soochow University's Marxism school, wrote that Beijing could choose a moment to revive 'civil war operations' against Taiwan and impose 'direct governance' over the island during that time.
Mainland China and Taiwan split in 1949 at the end of a civil war when the Kuomintang was defeated by Communist Party forces and fled to Taipei.
Beijing regards Taiwan as part of its territory, to be reunited by force if necessary. Most countries, including the United States, do not recognise the island as an independent state, but Washington is opposed to any unilateral change to the status quo and is also committed to providing weapons to Taipei for the island's defence.
Wang suggested that Beijing could blockade Taiwan's ports, airspace, cyberspace and surrounding seas to prevent the conflict from escalating externally and to cut off foreign help. A trade embargo could block military supplies, and any Taiwanese or foreign vessels and aircraft violating the embargo could be confiscated.
In another paper published in 2023, the author Zhu Lei, a professor at Minnan Normal University, argued that the governance framework for Taiwan must be significantly more strict under non-peaceful scenarios. Regarding security, Taiwan's military would be restructured and the PLA would be stationed in Taiwan and take primary responsibility for the island's defence, while the restructured local force would mainly manage social order.
Zhu suggested introducing a decades-long transitional period in which Taiwan would retain its capitalist system under which the state would not play the chief role in the economy and public life – unlike the system on the mainland.
He said Taiwan would be granted greater autonomy than that of ethnic minority autonomous regions, which include Tibet and Xinjiang, but slightly less than Hong Kong and Macau, arguing that 'the treatment granted through non-peaceful reunification must never exceed that of peaceful reunification, otherwise it would amount to encouraging resistance'.
He also suggested local governance should be carried out by 'the virtuous', which he defined as those supporting reunification.
Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the US, observed that these publications appeared to aim at helping manage perceptions of post-conflict stability.
'These academic papers authored by government-affiliated experts and approved for publication in leading journals signal a shift in [Beijing's] Taiwan policy from preventing independence to promoting reunification,' Zhao said.
'They shape domestic and international narratives to legitimise non-peaceful reunification while mitigating concerns about prolonged chaos and massive destruction.'
He added that the discussions could convey a coercive message to Taiwan's ruling party and its supporters, and influence public opinion in Taiwan.
'Publishing these discussions in academic journals, rather than through official government statements, allows [Beijing] to advance these objectives while maintaining plausible deniability regarding official policy endorsement.'
Yun Sun, director of the China programme at the Washington-based Stimson Centre, said the discussions reflected 'the reality that since 2019, US-China relations have deteriorated at an accelerated rate, and the notion of a Taiwan contingency has become increasingly real'.
'Since most of the military planning cannot be discussed in the open, discussion about the future political arrangement over Taiwan becomes both needed and desired,' Sun said. 'This does not mean that China is close to [attacking] Taiwan militarily.
'Preventing independence and promoting reunification are the two sides of the same coin as long as [the Democratic Progressive Party] is in power. At the current state, Taiwanese people will not embrace reunification willingly, so the only viable option is by force if China believes that it can deter US military intervention.'
Limits
Some analysts say these discussions among mainland scholars will remain reference points for Beijing but have limited influence.
Zhu Songling, a professor at the Institute of Taiwan Studies at Beijing Union University, noted that since 2019 there had been increasing attention paid to the governance framework for Taiwan, with two major projects set up under the National Social Science Fund – a major source of funding for social science research in mainland China.
However, he said, there was more work to be done. 'Since one country, two systems is a relatively new concept [that has only been tested in Hong Kong and Macau], it holds vast theoretical and practical potential, with much space still to be explored.'
Zhu also said 'there remains a possibility that the plan for Taiwan will differ significantly from the model in Hong Kong and Macau' because of differences between the regions.
'Due to historical reasons, the Hong Kong and Macau arrangements were formed through negotiations and implemented along with practices. Exactly how the plan for Taiwan should be studied and implemented still requires exploratory advancement through practice.'
Li Fei, a Taiwan studies specialist at Xiamen University, also noted that academic discussions 'provide a reference for decision-making' but planning had 'to be constantly adjusted according to changes in the situation'.
However, according to one analyst, the prospect of Beijing's possible governance plan for Taiwan is losing appeal, creating major problems.
Chong Ja Ian, an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, suggested that any proposal from Beijing lacking credible self-restraint was unlikely to appeal to Taiwan.
He said that meanwhile, military pressure and coercive tactics, such as the drills, espionage cases and disinformation campaigns, had only deepened distrust and resistance in Taiwan.
Beijing, however, has blamed the Taiwanese authorities for provoking the hostility and said its action was in response to such action. The central government has vowed to unwaveringly uphold the rights to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity if 'Taiwan independence elements do not stop their provocations'.
Zhu Fenglian, a spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, earlier said that the mainland's military drills around Taiwan served as a resolute warning to 'instigators of war' and were not aimed at Taiwanese people. -- SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST