Tang Meng Kitby Tang Meng Kit
語言:
English
Photo Credit: N509FZ/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
When Unity Masks Control
BEIJING INSISTS THAT reunification with Taiwan is inevitable. It presents the project as a peaceful return to a shared destiny, a family reuniting after decades apart. This language is polished and emotionally coded, designed to suggest that force will never be necessary.
But the actions behind the words tell a different story. From military provocations to elite manipulation, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not inviting Taiwan to the table, instead it is eroding the legs of the chair. Reunification is not a conversation. It is a calculated strategy to dismantle autonomy from within.
This is not to suggest that all contact between the two sides is coercive, or that dialogue is impossible. Trade, cultural exchange and interpersonal relationships matter and have value. But these should occur on equal terms, without the shadow of pressure or the manipulation of institutions.
The Illusion of Peaceful Unification
BEIJING EMPHASIZES its dedication to peaceful development in the Taiwan Strait through initiatives like integrating Fujian zones, granting residency rights to Taiwanese citizens, and promoting cultural exchanges, all framed as goodwill gestures. However, these efforts mask a more concerning agenda: the normalization of annexation.
While the CCP promotes “spiritual unity,” it continues to threaten military action. Military aircraft frequently enter Taiwan’s air defense identification zone, and warships patrol its waters. Furthermore, cyberattacks target public infrastructure and civil society. These actions are not mere diplomatic errors; they represent a dual strategy of advocating for peace while preparing for coercive tactics.
Some may argue that because Beijing has not yet used overt military force, its approach remains peaceful. But coercion does not require bombs. It works best when dressed in routine, when threats are normalized. The absence of invasion does not mean the absence of pressure.
The example of Hong Kong reveals the endgame. The CCP promised fifty years of autonomy under “One Country, Two Systems.” When protests erupted, it responded with arrests, media crackdowns, and new laws designed to extinguish dissent. What began as a promise ended as a purge. Taiwan understands the pattern.
Exploiting an Open System
TAIWAN’S ECONOMY is globally integrated. Nearly 30% of its exports go to China. This creates pressure points the CCP knows how to exploit. Agricultural bans such as pineapples, groupers and wax apples are not about food safety. They are political messages wrapped in trade language. The goal is to divide, not to negotiate.
Tourism restrictions work the same way. China sends fewer group tours when political winds shift. Service industries feel the chill. The calculation is that economic pain will soften Taiwan’s resolve.
Others might see such integration as pragmatism – mutually beneficial exchanges rather than coercion. It’s true that economic interdependence can be stabilizing. But the nature of that dependence matters. When trade becomes a tool for punishment, it becomes a form of leverage.
The CCP’s strategy goes beyond commerce. It targets the core of Taiwan’s democratic openness. The free press, vibrant civil society and transparent government are assets. They are also vulnerabilities. Infiltration does not come in uniforms, it sometimes comes with data, donations or disinformation.
Elite Capture as a Long-Term Investment
THE MOST EFFICIENT way to influence a democracy is to manipulate its elites. The CCP knows this well. It does not need to persuade an entire population. It only needs to compromise enough people in the right places.
Junior military officers facing financial strain have been approached with cryptocurrency in exchange for intelligence. Retired officials are offered speaking tours and stipends to echo Beijing’s language. Politicians are courted with business deals.
The entertainment industry is another tool. Celebrities must remain “market friendly” in China. Many avoid political statements. Some amplify reunification slogans. The incentive is not ideological. It is economic. Silence, or subtle endorsement, is safer than dissent.
Some argue that not all who support cross-strait integration are compromised. That is true. There are Taiwanese who genuinely believe closer ties with China are necessary or inevitable. Their voices should not be dismissed. But it is also true that the ecosystem in which they speak is shaped by incentives, surveillance and self-censorship.
United Front tactics go deeper. Business leaders with operations in China are encouraged to publicly support cross-strait integration. Educational and religious networks are approached with appeals to shared ancestry. These are not relics of history. They are active pressure systems. The aim is not persuasion. It is quiet alignment.
Resistance in the Public Mind
TAIWANESE SOCIETY remains largely immune to these narratives. Identity has shifted. Over sixty percent of the population now identify exclusively as Taiwanese. Fewer than three percent of young people support unification. The rejection of “One Country, Two Systems” is nearly universal.
Some observers argue that Taiwan is overreacting – that suspicion of Beijing fosters paranoia and hinders constructive engagement. But mistrust is not hysteria when it is built on pattern recognition. It is a rational response to repeated violations of trust, from Hong Kong to Xinjiang.
Yet public opinion alone is not enough. Awareness must translate into resilience. The CCP understands that political fatigue is its ally. The more normalized the pressure, the less urgent the response. This is where Taiwan’s strength risks becoming a weakness. When threat becomes background noise, it ceases to provoke defense.
Taiwan’s democracy is both shield and target. Its openness enables resistance but also allows infiltration. This contradiction must be acknowledged – not as a failure of the system, but as a feature that requires constant attention.
The Quiet Architecture of Annexation
BEIJING’S GOAL is not immediate conquest. It is absorption by erosion. Control does not need to arrive with boots on the ground. It can come through contracts, bridges and slogans.
The Kinmen-Xiamen infrastructure plans reveal this approach. These projects are framed as regional development but operate as geopolitical tests. If de facto unification can be achieved in border zones, the precedent will ripple outward.
The ideological element is just as deliberate. Reunification is tied to the “Chinese Dream” – a nationalist vision designed to frame sovereignty as selfishness and integration as loyalty. In this version of history, Taiwan’s autonomy is not a democratic achievement. It is a temporary deviation.
Reinforcing Resilience Without Illusion
THE DEFENSE OF Taiwan must extend beyond the military. Autonomy is undermined not by missiles but by manipulated markets, co-opted voices and normalized narratives.
This is why economic diversification matters. Reliance on a hostile power cannot be neutral. Strengthening ties with democratic partners not only in trade, but in values is a strategic necessity.
Legal frameworks must also evolve. Foreign agent registration, stricter counterespionage laws and better safeguards for civic data can fortify the system without compromising rights. Security does not require abandoning openness. It requires defending it with clarity.
Civic society is the final line. Public education on media literacy, cybersecurity and CCP tactics must be constant, not reactive. This is not about creating panic. It is about building democratic stamina.
Conclusion: No Trap Without Consent
BEIJING WANTS the world to believe that unification is a foregone conclusion. That the question is when, not if. But Taiwan’s people are not confused. They know that the real danger is not a military invasion. It is the slow dismantling of the institutions and identities that make self-rule possible.
Reunification, as defined by the CCP, is a trap disguised as a proposal. It invites consent while undermining the conditions under which consent can be freely given. Taiwan’s task is not to argue with the premise. It is to reject the game.
Autonomy is not a gift. It is a practice. And in Taiwan, that practice continues.