The Taiwan-China relationship remains one of the world’s most intricate geopolitical challenges. Taiwan operates as a de facto independent state with a democratic government and a flourishing economy, while China regards it as an inseparable part of its territory. Stabilising Taiwan’s sovereignty through an arrangement of associated statehood of confederation may offer a means to settle the complex and enduring matter equitably.

An earlier analysis examined reunification prospects through frameworks such as a Chinese Commonwealth, drawing on Deng Xiaoping’s Six Conceptions as a foundation for fostering cooperative ties. Expanding on these ideas, Deng Xiaoping’s 1983 “One Country, Two Systems” principles and George Yeo’s 2023 concept of a “Chinese Commonwealth” underscore peaceful reunification by granting Taiwan significant autonomy under Chinese sovereignty.

To summarize, Deng Xiaoping’s 1983 articulation of six principles for the peaceful reunification of mainland China and Taiwan—known as Dengs Six Conceptions—formed the cornerstone of the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. These principles sought to balance national unification with Taiwan’s unique social and political identity: These principles underscored Deng’s vision for peaceful reconciliation by accommodating Taiwan’s autonomy while pursuing national unity.

However, this contrasts with Xi Jinping’s 2019 five-point proposal, which acknowledged the need for a Taiwan-specific solution distinct from the Hong Kong-Macau model. Xi’s approach reflects an evolution in Beijing’s strategy, shaped by contemporary political realities and Taiwan’s democratic identity. These five points, emphasising peaceful integration while maintaining firm commitments to national sovereignty, are:

Promoting China’s Rejuvenation and Peaceful Reunification: Xi framed the reunification of Taiwan as integral to the broader goal of China’s national rejuvenation, positioning it as a shared endeavor for people on both sides of the strait.

Exploring a Distinct “Two Systems” Solution for Taiwan: While rooted in the principles of “One Country, Two Systems,” Xi proposed a framework tailored to Taiwan’s unique circumstances, distinguishing it from the arrangements in Hong Kong and Macau.

Upholding the One-China Principle: Reaffirming the necessity of the one-China principle, Xi emphasized its role in preserving the path toward peaceful reunification and preventing fragmentation of sovereignty.

Deepening Cross-Strait Integration: Xi advocated for expanded economic, social, and cultural integration to create a robust foundation for eventual unification.

Strengthening People-to-People Bonds: He highlighted the importance of fostering closer ties between the populations of Taiwan and mainland China to build mutual trust and commitment to peaceful unification.

Xi underscored that the principles of “peaceful reunification” and “one country, two systems” remain the preferred approach for achieving unification. This is reflected in the discomfort with a ‘Chinese Commonwealth’ by Beijing.

However, Xi reiterated that while China seeks a peaceful resolution, it reserves the right to use force, primarily as a deterrent against external interference and movements advocating for Taiwan’s independence. This duality reflects Beijing’s strategic calculus: promoting integration while safeguarding sovereignty through both diplomatic and military preparedness.

Key to this is the US reponse to the changes in the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. There are no signs either the US or China will reach consensus on a conceptual “Chinese Commonwealth”. And the Washinton’s Taiwan window is closing as Chinese military strength.  

Adapting these principles to contemporary realities, especially in light of the geopolitical volatility and heightened China-US competition under the Trump regime, may open new pathways, particularly through configurations such as associated statehood and confederation.

While these models emphasize coexistence and mutual benefit, they must be reimagined to address Taiwan’s democratic maturity and evolving security concerns. Insights from global arrangements provide a valuable foundation for exploring these alternatives.

Associated Statehood

New Zealand’s relationships with the Cook Islands and Niue demonstrate how smaller entities can maintain internal autonomy while partnering with a larger state on defence and foreign policy. Similarly, the U.S. Compacts of Free Association with Pacific island nations of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Republic of Palau show how sovereignty can coexist with mutual defence arrangements and economic partnerships.

The models of associated statehood practiced by New Zealand and the United States under the Compact of Free Association (COFA) provide important insights into balancing autonomy with strategic interdependence. While both models share core similarities in granting self-governance to associated states, they diverge significantly in their treatment of sovereignty, citizenship, and international representation.