Beyond Independence or Submission: A Third Path for the Taiwan Strait
A sustainable peace across the Taiwan Strait requires linking national unification to democratic reform—transforming a zero-sum struggle over sovereignty into a shared pursuit of legitimacy.
The Taiwan Strait has long epitomized the tension between sovereignty and democracy — a binary that has locked East Asia’s most sensitive flashpoint in a cycle of instability. For decades, the issue has been framed as an impossible choice: unification under authoritarian rule or permanent separation under the threat of war. Both paths carry unacceptable risks: authoritarian unification would destroy Taiwan’s democracy and autonomy, while military conquest, either provoked or unprovoked, would devastate the island and risk provoking a great-power clash.
Yet amid shifting regional dynamics — including a recent leadership transition within Taiwan’s Kuomintang (KMT) — new political space may be opening for an alternative approach: one that links peace to democracy and legitimacy rather than coercion or deterrence.
A Democratic Alternative
The starting point is a simple principle: peace must be tied to democracy. Taiwan cannot be expected to surrender its freedoms; nor can Beijing expect unification to be accepted under authoritarian rule. But if unification were conditioned on political reform in the PRC, the dynamic would change fundamentally.
The logic recalls the Helsinki Accords of 1975, which linked European security to respect for human rights. Just as détente in Europe required commitments to liberalization, peace in East Asia could be anchored in democratic guarantees.
Such a framework would reshape the logic of unification. For Taiwan, it would mean security without capitulation. For Beijing, it would mean linking national unity with the legitimacy of democratization.
Building in Phases
Peaceful unification cannot occur overnight. A phased approach ensures both sides have incentives to cooperate.
Phase I: Security and Assurance.
The initial step would be a mutual pledge: Taiwan renounces any move toward independence, while Beijing renounces the use of force. Taiwan retains a high degree of autonomy, including defense capabilities, within a symbolic confederated arrangement. A joint renaming—such as the Democratic Republic of China—could mark goodwill without erasing either side’s identity. With Beijing’s support, Taiwan could re-enter the United Nations, restoring international recognition and dignity while signaling the irreversibility of a peaceful settlement.
Phase II: Linking Peace to Reform.
The second phase would explicitly tie political integration to democratization on the mainland. Taiwan would gain a legitimate stake in Beijing’s reform trajectory; the PRC would gain credibility at home and abroad by demonstrating that unity is achieved not through coercion but through consent.
Economic integration could proceed first, including a cross-strait common market, harmonized regulations, and coordinated fiscal mechanisms. Political integration—such as the gradual harmonization of laws and regulatory standards—could follow. Military and foreign policy coordination would come only with demonstrable progress in democratization.
The European Union provides a model: sovereignty can be pooled incrementally, under mutual oversight and legal safeguards, allowing integration without coercion.
This phased approach makes peace self-reinforcing: Taiwan’s security would depend on Beijing’s reforms, while Beijing’s legitimacy would grow from successful integration under democratic conditions.
Why the World Should Care
Skeptics may dismiss this vision as utopian. Yet the alternative—armed conflict—is unimaginably costly. A war in the Taiwan Strait would devastate both Taiwan and the mainland, fracture global supply chains, and destabilize the broader Indo-Pacific. Japan would face immediate security threats; Southeast Asia would be drawn into a militarized regional order; Europe would suffer from trade and technology shocks. Above all, the conflict could draw the United States and China into direct confrontation—the closest scenario the world faces today to a modern world war.
For Washington, supporting democratic unification as a principle would align strategy with values. It would reassure Taiwan without cornering Beijing. For Tokyo and Seoul, it would offer stability beyond cycles of military buildup. For Southeast Asia, it would reduce pressure to choose sides in great-power rivalry. For Europe, it would reinforce the global case that conflicts of sovereignty can be managed through norms, rules, and institutions rather than war.
Peace with Dignity
Unification, in some form, may ultimately be inevitable. But how it is achieved will determine whether it becomes a tragedy or a triumph. Taiwan should view democratic unification not as surrender but as a means of preserving freedom while securing peace. Beijing should see democratization not as a threat but as the only path to genuine legitimacy—at home and abroad.
History will reward those who exercise wisdom, adapt to circumstances, and innovate. The Taiwan Strait need not be a trigger for war; it could instead demonstrate that even the hardest sovereignty disputes can be resolved through democratic consent.
The real choice is not between unification and independence. It is between war and peace, coercion and consent. Only the latter safeguards dignity, freedom, and stability—for Taiwan, for Beijing, and for the global community.
Jianyong Yue is a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and previously taught Chinese politics and development at King’s College and LSE. He published China’s Rise in the Age of Globalization: Myth or Reality (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) and Crony Comprador Capitalism: The Institutional Origins of China’s Rise and Decline (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).
Photo by veysel boz
