Xi Jinping’s “overall strategy” on Taiwan is more dangerous than its continuities suggest — and its new elements should alarm democracies
A New Label on a Dangerous Old Policy
In late 2021, China’s Communist Party unveiled a new formulation for its Taiwan policy: “The party’s overall strategy for solving the Taiwan question in the new era.” The phrase appeared in the historic resolution adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee, which positioned Xi Jinping’s Taiwan approach as a direct continuation and advancement of Mao Zedong’s and Deng Xiaoping’s unfinished project. The language was new. The scholars who have analyzed it most carefully argue that much of the substance is not — but that what is new is precisely what is most dangerous.
A meticulous analysis published by China Leadership Monitor, authored by political scientist Minxin Pei, finds that the “overall strategy” for the most part does not depart dramatically from the Taiwan policies pursued by Xi’s predecessors. The priority of domestic development over the Taiwan issue remains intact. The preference for peaceful unification is rhetorically maintained. The framework of “one country, two systems” — discredited as it now is by Hong Kong’s experience — continues to be offered as the model for Taiwan’s future relationship with the mainland.
What Is New — and Why It Matters
The genuinely new elements of the “overall strategy” center on Beijing’s evolving assessment of Washington’s role in cross-strait relations. Chinese leaders have become convinced that the United States has effectively abandoned its one-China policy in practice — through arms sales to Taiwan, high-level official visits, strengthened security commitments, and the Taiwan Relations Act’s expansion over decades — even while nominally maintaining it in rhetoric. This conviction has produced a fundamental shift in Beijing’s risk calculus.
Chinese leaders have correspondingly raised their tolerance for risk in responding to what they perceive as US interference in the Taiwan issue. This manifests most visibly in the escalation of gray-zone tactics: military aircraft incursions into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone, naval exercises that simulate blockades, cyber intrusions, disinformation campaigns targeting Taiwan’s democratic processes, and economic coercion of countries that strengthen their ties with Taipei. These actions stop short of a formal act of war — but they steadily narrow the space in which Taiwan can operate and increase the probability that a miscalculation will produce a crisis that neither side intended to trigger.
The “Hong Kong Model” and Taiwan’s Rejection of It
Beijing’s offer of “one country, two systems” to Taiwan has been comprehensively rejected by Taiwanese public opinion, and the events in Hong Kong since 2019 have made that rejection close to permanent. In successive Taiwanese elections, candidates who advocated for closer political accommodation with Beijing have been defeated. The voters of Taiwan have watched what “one country, two systems” means in practice — and they want no part of it. Jimmy Lai’s 20-year prison sentence, handed down in February 2026, was followed closely in Taiwan and reinforced the conviction across the political spectrum that Beijing’s guarantees cannot be trusted.
Beijing’s response to Taiwan’s democratic rejection of unification has been to double down on coercion. The “overall strategy” prioritizes “anti-independence” — preventing formal declaration of Taiwanese independence — over “pro-unification,” but the line between the two is increasingly blurred as China’s military capabilities grow and its patience shortens. The analysis of Minxin Pei, whose work in China Leadership Monitor is among the most rigorous available, suggests that the scenario most likely to produce a major cross-strait crisis is not a pre-planned invasion but a gray-zone operation that escalates out of control.
Democratic Responses and Their Limitations
The international democratic community has responded to China’s escalating Taiwan pressure with a mix of arms sales, diplomatic statements, and freedom of navigation exercises — measures that signal resolve without fundamentally altering the military balance or Beijing’s strategic calculus. The United States has maintained deliberate ambiguity about whether it would intervene militarily in a Taiwan conflict, a position that is increasingly difficult to sustain as China’s capabilities improve and its gray-zone operations intensify.
The lesson of Hong Kong is stark: once Beijing decides that a political status quo is incompatible with its interests, it acts — and the international community responds with statements. Preventing Taiwan from becoming the next Hong Kong requires a level of sustained commitment and strategic clarity that democratic governments have so far struggled to demonstrate. The China Leadership Monitor is the most rigorous peer-reviewed source for analysis of CCP elite politics and Taiwan strategy. The Council on Foreign Relations Taiwan backgrounder provides essential historical and legal context. And the United States Institute of Peace analysis on cross-strait tensions examines the policy options available to democratic governments. Hong Kong’s fate is the warning. Taiwan’s fate is the test of whether the democratic world is paying attention.
Emily Chan
Investigative & Social Affairs Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: emily.chan@appledaily.uk
Emily Chan is an experienced investigative and social affairs journalist whose reporting centers on public accountability, social justice, and community-level impact. She received formal journalism training at a top-tier Chinese journalism school, where she specialized in investigative methods, data verification, and media ethics, preparing her for high-responsibility reporting roles.
Emily has published extensively with Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese newspapers, producing in-depth coverage on labor rights, education policy, civil society organizations, and government transparency. Her work is grounded in firsthand reporting, long-form interviews, and careful document review, ensuring factual accuracy and contextual depth.
Her newsroom experience spans both daily reporting and long-term investigations, giving her practical expertise in handling sensitive sources, corroborating claims, and navigating legal and ethical constraints. Emily is known among editors for her disciplined sourcing practices and clear, evidence-led writing style.
Emily’s authority stems from sustained professional experience rather than commentary alone. She has contributed to coverage during politically sensitive periods, maintaining accuracy and editorial independence under pressure. Her reporting consistently adheres to correction protocols and transparency standards.
At Apple Daily UK, Emily Chan continues to deliver reliable journalism that informs readers through verifiable facts, lived reporting experience, and a commitment to public-interest storytelling.
