China’s Expanding View of “Taiwan Independence” and Implications for U.S. Policy
China’s shifting interpretation of “Taiwan independence” is reshaping red lines and threatening peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. Alongside increasingly aggressive military operations, Beijing is advancing a narrative that frames any expression of political autonomy by Taiwan as a move toward independence. Those who decline to endorse Taiwan’s subordination to China, or simply affirm Taiwan’s democratic system irrespective of formal statehood, are now labeled “pro-independence.” This approach implies that the status quo— Taiwan’s operation as a self-governing democracy under the Republic of China constitution — is itself a form of separatism.
China’s rhetorical evolution on “Taiwan independence” has shifted significantly over the past two decades. In the past, Beijing defined “Taiwan independence” as formal legal moves toward statehood, such as constitutional amendments or declarations of independence. Today, however, the PRC increasingly frames a much broader range of activities—including support for Taiwan’s democracy, international participation, and rejection of Communist Party rule—as evidence of “separatism.” This shift has expanded the scope of political persecution against Taiwanese individuals and groups. Individuals residing in or interacting with the mainland are being targeted for political expression that Beijing deems separatist. Behind this shifting of red lines, Beijing has increasing latitude to construct legal and narrative justifications for aggression under the guise of defending sovereignty and territorial integrity against fabricated provocations.
Taiwan’s de facto Independence
Beijing’s view of “Taiwan independence” is at odds with the long-established position of Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). In May 1999, through the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” the DPP declared: “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current official name is the Republic of China. Any change to the status quo must be decided by the people of Taiwan through a referendum.” This resolution affirmed Taiwan’s de facto independence, grounding its sovereignty in democratic legitimacy and rejecting Beijing’s “One China” narrative. It also clarified that there was no need for a formal declaration of independence, as Taiwan was already functioning as a sovereign state.
The DPP’s mainstream stance remains aligned with the resolution. Former President Tsai Ing-wen’s “Four Commitments” reiterated its enduring relevance by noting in 2021 that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are “not subordinate to each other.” Similarly, in his 2024 inaugural address, President William Lai declared, “Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country. There is no need to declare independence again.” This longstanding principle of “substantive independence, status quo maintenance” has guided cross-Strait policy for over two decades and has become a unifying theme in Taiwan’s political discourse.
Legal Ambiguity as a Basis for Force
As China’s rhetoric on “Taiwan independence” expands, the likelihood grows that Beijing will manufacture a justification for aggression under its Anti-Secession Law. Enacted in 2005, the law establishes conditions for using force against Taiwan. Article 8 mandates “non-peaceful means” if Taiwan formally declares independence, “major incidents entailing Taiwan’s secession” occur, or prospects for peaceful unification are exhausted.
These terms are deliberately ambiguous, allowing Beijing broad interpretive discretion to authorize force in response to any move that falls within its view of “Taiwan independence.” The “major incidents” clause is particularly worrisome because it can encompass virtually any political development regarding Taiwan. As the former Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, James Moriarty, warned, the law is a “ticking time bomb” that China can use to justify military aggression based on its internal assessments. The law serves not just as deterrence but as a pretextual legal groundwork for potential military escalation, representing a cornerstone in Beijing’s lawfare playbook.
Beijing’s Lawfare, Discourse Control, and Diplomatic Isolation of Taiwan
China leverages lawfare, discourse control, and diplomatic isolation to delegitimize Taiwan’s international standing and shape global perceptions in line with Beijing’s evolving narrative of “Taiwan independence.” Beijing’s new “anti-separatism” guidelines — sometimes called “22 Rules for Punishing Taiwan Independence” — signal increased legal readiness for enforcement actions against perceived separatists, while implicitly reinforcing the claim that Taiwan is moving toward independence. As a supplement to the Anti-Secession Law, these guidelines mark a further escalation in Beijing’s lawfare campaign.
At the same time, China supports its expanding view of “Taiwan independence” by manipulating discourse on Taiwan’s legal status. A key example is its distortion of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758. While the resolution recognized the People’s Republic of China as “the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations,” Beijing has falsely claimed it extinguished Taiwan as a political entity. This distortion is part of a broader strategy of defining any international or diplomatic interaction with Taiwan as a step toward independence, regardless of its actual content or intent.
Diplomatic pressure further amplifies Beijing’s narrative. China routinely coerces other countries into using Beijing-approved language in bilateral communiqués and discourages official interactions with Taiwan. By labeling routine engagements as acts of secession, Beijing is expanding the definition of “Taiwan independence”. In parallel, China continues to poach Taiwan’s diplomatic allies and suppress Taiwan’s participation in international organizations, despite Taiwan’s strong democratic credentials and meaningful contributions to global health and trade. Through these efforts, Beijing has broadened its view of “Taiwan independence” to encompass a wide range of political, diplomatic, and international interactions that are fundamentally neutral and non-threatening. Collectively, this campaign is reshaping global discourse over Taiwan’s sovereignty and challenging U.S. strategic messaging and alliance coordination in the Indo-Pacific.
U.S. Policy: Recalibrating to Resist Beijing’s Narrative War
Historically, the United States emphasized that it does not “support Taiwan independence,” which Beijing has repeatedly misinterpreted as implied support for non-intervention and unification on China’s terms. In 2025, the U.S. Department of State updated its Taiwan Fact Sheet, removing the phrase “does not support Taiwan independence” and instead stressing: “We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo and encourage peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences acceptable to both sides.” This revision appears to reflect Washington’s awareness of Beijing’s expanding interpretation of “Taiwan independence” to encompass a broader range of actions that Beijing deems threatening, such as Taiwan’s participation in international organizations or foreign relations that do not follow Beijing’s strict parameters.
U.S. officials have also been careful not to echo China’s phrasing in bilateral meetings. In a recent exchange, China claimed that U.S. officials “reaffirmed opposition to Taiwan independence,” but the U.S. readout did not contain such language, signaling Washington’s sensitivity to Beijing’s rhetorical manipulation. The United States should continue this trend — emphasizing peace, opposing force, and respecting the will of the Taiwanese people — while rejecting Beijing’s efforts to distort views on “Taiwan independence” as a pretext for coercion or aggression.
Conclusion
China’s expanding characterization of “Taiwan independence” threatens regional stability and warrants careful, sustained countermeasures. Taiwan’s consistent stance — de facto independence under the name Republic of China — remains a moderate, democratic posture that seeks stability without provocation. To protect the delicate balance of peace in the Taiwan Strait, the United States should continue to expose and oppose Beijing’s legal and narrative manipulation of “Taiwan independence,” while affirming that the political status quo provides no grounds for coercion or aggression. The battle for legal and discourse supremacy is not a side issue but a strategic front line in the struggle for peace, sovereignty, and international order.
