How Chinese Scholars View the Taiwan Question—and Why It Matters for Washington

From language and historical unity to red lines and regional consequences

The U.S. State Department recently approved $11.1 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, reportedly the largest U.S. weapons package ever approved for the island. Beijing’s response was swift and unequivocal. At a regular press briefing on Dec. 19, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said the move “grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs,” undermines China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, disrupts peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and sends a “seriously wrong message” to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces. China, he added, has lodged serious protests with the U.S. side.

This latest round of moves unfolded against a broader backdrop. Washington has also just released its latest National Security Strategy, which references Taiwan eight times—highlighting its strategic location and the importance of its semiconductor industry—while reiterating that the U.S. “does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”

In response, China’s State Council Taiwan Affairs Office urged the U.S. to honor the serious political commitments made by its leaders, exercise extreme caution on the Taiwan question, stop emboldening “Taiwan independence” forces, and refrain from sending any further misleading signals.

For many in China, these moves reinforce a familiar but unsettling perception: that the current U.S. administration does not fully grasp—or does not sufficiently weigh—how central the Taiwan question is to China’s core interests and to the overall trajectory of China–U.S. relations. At the same time, there is growing curiosity, including among international readers, about how Chinese scholars themselves interpret Washington’s latest actions.

To explore that question, we spoke with several Chinese experts. Their perspectives range from how people on the mainland refer to Taiwan people and what that language reveals about cross-Strait relations, to the historical logic of “national unification” in Chinese political thought; from why Taiwan is widely seen as Beijing’s clearest red line, to how reunification—if and when it happens—would shape China–U.S. relations, Taiwan’s own future, and the broader Asia-Pacific landscape.

As always, the views below reflect those of the individual scholars, not any institution.

---

1. Why the mainland refers to Taiwan residents as “compatriots,” and what the term signals about the future of cross-Strait relations.
In Chinese political discourse, residents of Taiwan are commonly referred to as “tongbao” (同胞), a word often translated as “compatriots.” Standard Chinese dictionaries typically define “tongbao” in two ways: as people “born of the same parents,” and more broadly as “members of the same nation or ethnicity.” Usage examples frequently include “Taiwan compatriots” as well as “compatriots from Hong Kong and Macao.”

熊晓煜 Xiong Xiaoyu, the deputy director of the Institute of Taiwan Studies at Wuhan University: “Tongbao” carries a strong emotional resonance that is difficult to capture fully in English. The term reflects a deeply rooted sense of shared identity rather than a purely legal or political designation.

Beyond its historical and emotional dimensions, the term “tongbao” also carries implications for the future of cross-Strait relations. It reflects an understanding of the Chinese state as one whose people inherently include Taiwan residents. In this view, territory long inhabited by compatriots is considered an inseparable part of the nation, and reunification is therefore regarded as a domestic affair, not one subject to foreign intervention.
At the same time, the term conveys an expectation of restraint. By framing both sides of the Strait as kin, it implies that reunification should be pursued in a way that minimizes harm and emphasizes shared bonds rather than confrontation.

彭韬 Peng Tao, deputy director of the Center for East Asia and Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao Studies at Wuhan-based Central China Normal University: “Tongbao” is both a present identity and a forward-looking declaration. It signals the Chinese government’s confidence and resolve to resolve the Taiwan question and complete the process of national reunification. For the Communist Party of China, reunification has long been framed as an unshakable historical mission—one that continues to shape policy and rhetoric today.

2. Why “the maintenance of national unity” is important?

From the perspective of many Chinese historians, China’s civilization—spanning more than 5,000 years—has been shaped by a persistent commitment to what is known as “da yi tong,” (大一统) or “the maintenance of national unity.”

邢广程 Xing Guangcheng, an academician at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a specialist in borderland and regional studies: “The maintenance of national unity” became a guiding principle of governance during the Qin (221–206 BCE) and Han (206 BCE–220 CE) dynasties and has been upheld by successive Chinese governments ever since. Each regarded national unity as a paramount political ideal. The Qing dynasty (1644–1911), in particular, brought this tradition to its apex, consolidating a vast, multi-ethnic realm and laying the groundwork for a modern sovereign state.

Although China’s history has alternated between periods of unity and division, the broader historical trajectory has consistently favored reunification. This continuity is often summarized in a widely cited formulation: “The territory cannot be divided, the nation cannot fall into chaos, the ethnic groups cannot be dispersed, and the civilization cannot be interrupted.”

熊晓煜 Xiong Xiaoyu: From Beijing’s perspective, national reunification thus occupies the very core of China’s core interests. On an emotional level, Taiwan is widely seen on the mainland as the last unresolved legacy of China’s modern-era humiliations, giving the issue a powerful resonance in popular sentiment.

3. Why Beijing draws a red line against any attempt to separate Taiwan
彭韬 Peng Tao: Opposition to “Taiwan independence” is grounded in principles that Beijing argues are consistent with international law. Safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity is widely recognized as a fundamental right of states. On this basis, China maintains that opposing separatist activities and pursuing reunification constitute a legitimate exercise of sovereignty. This position is understood—and in practice accepted—by the majority of sovereign states, which adhere to the one-China principle in their diplomatic relations.

In addition, reunification would contribute to regional stability. A prolonged stalemate increases the risk that separatist moves or external interference could trigger military confrontation, with potentially severe consequences for the Asia-Pacific.

In an era when economic and trade issues are increasingly framed through a security lens, resolving the Taiwan question would help remove a major source of uncertainty, facilitating smoother regional and global economic cooperation.

China’s pursuit of complete reunification and “Making America Great Again” are not mutually exclusive.

4. What would the United States gain from supporting China’s reunification?
Some Chinese scholars argue that Washington’s support for peaceful cross-Strait reunification would align with China’s interests and would not necessarily undermine those of the United States.
祝捷 Zhu Jie, a professor at Wuhan University Law School and executive director of its Center for Legal Studies on Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao: Under a “one country, two systems” framework, Taiwan would retain a high degree of autonomy and space for industrial development after reunification. That arrangement, in turn, could open new avenues for U.S.-China engagement, enabling deeper integration of supply chains linking the Chinese mainland, Taiwan and the United States. Such integration would help anchor peace in the Asia-Pacific and deliver benefits not only to both sides of the Strait, but also to Washington and the broader international community.

王英津 Wang Yingjin, director of the Research Center for Cross-Strait Relations at Renmin University of China in Beijing: A peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question could help stabilize Sino-American relations while allowing the United States to benefit more fully from China’s vast and still-expanding market.

5. Reunification, national rejuvenation, and “Making America Great Again”
张云 Zhang Yun, a professor of international relations at Nanjing University: China’s pursuit of reunification and national rejuvenation need not conflict with America’s aspiration to “Make America Great Again.” China’s complete reunification is a natural outcome of its modernization process and a necessary condition for lasting regional stability. It would also inject fresh momentum into Asia-Pacific economic integration.
Resolving the Taiwan question within the framework of Sino-American relations would relieve the United States of an unnecessary strategic burden and a source of escalating risk. A fully reunified China would not pose a threat to U.S. security. An America seeking renewed strength can ill afford another cold war—or worse, a hot one. Mutual success and shared prosperity should form the foundation of a sound strategic understanding between the world’s two largest powers.

6. Implications for Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific, and global prosperity
彭韬 Peng Tao: China’s reunification would decisively eliminate the instability associated with “Taiwan independence” and allow Taiwan compatriots to share more fully in the dividends of national development. Peaceful reunification under a “one country, two systems” framework would establish a new foundation for China’s long-term development and national rejuvenation, while creating broad opportunities for Taiwan’s social and economic progress and delivering tangible benefits to its residents.
王英津 Wang Yingjin: Reunification would bring concrete developmental advantages supported by the mainland. Beyond Taiwan, China’s complete reunification would have wider implications: expanded markets, deeper regional integration, and shared prosperity across the Asia-Pacific—benefits that would ultimately extend to the global economy.

(Li Hanfang also contributed to this piece)