Last Friday's speech by the fourth-ranked Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader, Jia Qinglin (賈慶林), clearly demonstrates that China still does not understand Taiwan. Although it was a major statement commemorating the 10th anniversary of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) so-called Eight Points, the speech said little that was new. Other than giving a few hints about China's proposed anti-secession law, the speech uses racist argumentation and falsehoods to make its case.
Jia begins by noting how Jiang reiterated the policies of "peaceful unification" and "one country, two systems" -- policies which came from Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平). According to Jia, everything was fine until the mid-1990s when Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) pushed the "separatist activities" of creating "two Chinas" and "one China, one Taiwan."
Jia said that Jiang's eight points "supported the principle of one China, the foundation and prerequisite for achieving peaceful unification."
But the speech did not recognize that such a prerequisite would end negotiations before they began. This renders meaningless the subsequent statement that "under the prerequisite of one China, we can discuss any topic."
Perhaps the most disappointing feature of Jia's speech is its use of racist argumentation. He claims that Taiwanese are Chinese because of their "bones and flesh" and states, "the 21st century is the century of the Chinese people achieving a great renaissance," a "great renaissance that is the joint desire of all Chinese sons and daughters."
Such racist language goes back to Sun Yat-sen's (
The one new point in Jia's speech is his short discussion of the proposed "Anti-Secession National Law" (反分裂國家法). He says, "This law will codify as law the policies which our party and government have implemented for more than 20 years to achieve a peaceful solution to the Taiwan question using the basic policies of peaceful unification and `one country, two systems' and the Eight Points."
According to Jia, "This law will also make clear that all the Chinese people will defend the nation's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, and that they absolutely will not accept `Taiwan independence' separatist forces using any name or any method to separate Taiwan from China."
Jia says that in the early 1990s, Taiwan accepted the "1992 consensus" in which both sides agreed to "one China, with each side making its own interpretation." Originally, China denied that such a 1992 consensus existed, only saying in late 2001 that such a consensus had been agreed to, during Taiwan's legislative elections when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said as much. At that time, Su Chi (蘇起), a former KMT official who later served as vice-chairman and chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), maintained that such a consensus existed, but people in the MAC looked for evidence and found none.
Finally, Jia argues that we "advocate the new path of developing relations across the straits with Taiwan's political parties, groups and representative personages to seek discussions and the resolution of problems."
In China, the CCP controls government and groups as well as "personages," but Taiwan is now a democracy and must be represented by its government. Jia, like his predecessors in enunciating Chinese policy, fails to understand this change. Rather, he says Taiwan identity, democracy and reform are simply banners of the "`Taiwan Independence' separatist forces" who wish to use all their energies to push "desinification," "cultural Taiwan independence" and "rectification of Taiwan's name."
Charter flights across the Taiwan Strait during the Lunar New Year are great for Taiwanese businessmen and their families, but China cannot hope for genuine progress in cross-strait relations until it significantly increases its understanding of Taiwan and changes its policies accordingly. What initial steps could China take to improve its relations with Taiwan without giving too much away?
First, even without changing its rhetoric, as a measure to promote mutual confidence, China could reduce the number of missiles pointed at Taiwan. Second, China could attempt to demonstrate the bona fides of its "one country, two systems" policy by genuinely giving Hong Kong more autonomy. Third, China could agree to more practical cross-strait measures such as taking back its citizens that are currently in Taiwan's jails for illegal entry.
Bruce Jacobs is a professor of Asian languages and studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS