How far are Taiwan and China from each other? On a map, the distance is only about 125km from Hsinchu to Pingtan Island in China’s Fujian Province, but the controversy between the two sides over the Pingtan Comprehensive Experimental Zone makes it obvious that the psychological gap is far greater than the physical gap.
The Pingtan zone was established by China to experiment with its “Taiwanese compatriots” on the “five commons” — common planning, common development, common operation, common management and common benefits. China’s Fujian Governor Su Shulin (蘇樹林) says that some areas in Pingtan have been designated for shared development with Taiwanese cities, counties and institutions, that “Taiwanese compatriots” will handle management in those areas and that “Taiwanese compatriots” will also be invited to participate in the management of other areas. Essentially, the zone will experiment with a management model in which China calls the shots and Taiwan is the deputy.
In addition to economic experimentation, there will also be political experiments in the zone. Taiwanese officials suspect that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will want to carry out “one country, two systems” experiments in the zone. This has been flatly denied by Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO), which — in a rare example of conflict between it and the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) — criticized the MAC by saying the council’s attitudes toward cross-strait development were much too negative.
China officially defines the development of the zone as a pilot model for cross-strait exchanges and cooperation. Beijing says it is a cooperative mechanism aimed at exploring peaceful development, mutual benefits and shared gains and that it is of strategic significance in the promotion of “the great undertaking that is the unification of the motherland.”
In addition, Fujian officials repeatedly say almost a half-million Pingtan residents “are looking forward, with great expectations, to the Pingtan Comprehensive Experimental Zone playing an important role in the promotion of the great undertaking that is the peaceful unification of the motherland.” The strategic thinking of Chinese officials concerning the zone clearly includes the political goal of promoting peaceful unification. The council’s suspicion that the zone is part of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” strategy is thus in line with what Chinese officials are saying themselves.
However, some Taiwanese are echoing the TAO and a few political parties are fervently marketing the zone. These people think that even if China is trying to promote its “one country, two systems” strategy, “it is doing it in China, not in Taiwan, so what is there to be afraid of?” They also say the opportunity to bring the Taiwanese experience to Pingtan and oppose China’s united front strategy should not be passed up.
China is trying to use the minuscule zone to “release” land, power and benefits to Taiwanese as a political and economic experiment. If it is a failure, it would not affect the overall situation, but if it is a success, it could eventually be expanded. If Taiwanese capital and talent were lured away, it would have a devastating effect on the long-term dynamics of the Taiwanese economy.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. When buying Taiwanese agricultural products, signing the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement and launching the experimental zone, Beijing has always had thinly veiled political motives. Chinese officials have made the motives behind the experimental zone loud and clear, and now that their plot has been exposed, they are complaining that Taiwan is “too negative.” There is no other word than “shortsighted” to describe the fact that although Taiwanese clearly understand that the whole situation is a setup, they are wilfully falling for it anyway.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS