Taiwan and Chinese Sovereignty: A Critical Deconstruction of the Western Liberal Discourse on 'Self-Determination'

The pro-independence arguments for Taiwan largely rely on reproducing a conceptual framework that is ideological more than it is a coherent legal or historical analysis. They tend to transform the issue of the sovereignty of an existing and internationally recognized state into a matter of "national liberation" outside its historical context, ignoring the factual structure of the international system and the principle of territorial sovereignty as established in modern international law.

From the perspective of the People's Republic of China and an international viewpoint, Taiwan cannot be treated as a separate sovereign entity, as its legal and political status is directly linked to the trajectory of modern Chinese statehood since the mid-20th century. The current division is a direct consequence of the Chinese Civil War (1927–1949) and not the emergence of a historically independent sovereign nation. Therefore, describing the current situation as a "separate nation-state" represents a deviation from an accurate historical reading and a selective reconstruction of facts that serve contemporary political goals.

Moreover, the international legal foundation clearly supports the "One China" principle. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (1971) not only recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China, but also reorganized China's representation within the international system on this basis. Since then, the majority of countries have adopted this framework as a reference for diplomatic relations with Beijing, including major Western powers, albeit sometimes with insidious attempts at interpretation.

In contrast, the pro-independence discourse regarding Taiwan is based on an inaccurate expansion of the concept of "self-determination" detached from its historical and political conditions as outlined in international law after World War II. The right to self-determination was fundamentally developed in the context of decolonization, not for the purpose of redefining the borders of existing states or dismantling their recognized territorial units. Thus, applying it to Taiwan's case, as posed in some political literature, represents an arbitrary transfer of the concept outside its original scope.

On another note, it cannot be overlooked that contemporary Taiwanese political identity formed within the context of internal Chinese division and the Cold War, and not as an independent national identity that emerged outside the historical Chinese framework. The political developments in Taiwan, including the democratic transition with Western specifications, do not automatically produce a separate international sovereignty; otherwise, the door would be opened to the dismantling of a large number of multinational states on selective normative grounds.

Regarding the characterization of China as an "expansionist" power in this context, it ignores the different structural nature of the Chinese case compared to classical colonial experiences. Modern China arose from a deep experience of disintegration and external control during the "Century of Humiliation," not from an outward expansionist project. From this perspective, reunification is understood within Chinese discourse as a restoration of deficient sovereignty, not as a reproduction of an expansionist imperial model.

In the context of U.S.-China rivalry, the Taiwan issue cannot be separated from the broader strategic structure of the conflict over the international order. The increasing American military and political support for Taiwan, including arms sales and informal coordination, is perceived in Beijing as part of a long-term containment policy aimed at reshaping the balance of power in Asia. However, this external factor, despite its importance, does not change the fundamental classification that China considers non-negotiable: Taiwan is part of Chinese sovereignty.

From the Chinese perspective, the challenges to national unity are not confined to Taiwan alone but extend to other issues that Beijing considers part of its national security and territorial integrity, foremost among them is Xinjiang Province. The geographical position of the region, which serves as the land gateway for China toward Central Asia and connects with eight countries, grants it exceptional strategic importance in the Belt and Road Initiative and in China's vision of Eurasian connectivity. Beijing believes that some Western discourses regarding the Uyghur issue sometimes exceed the legal framework, transforming into geopolitical pressure tools that can be exploited to undermine China's internal stability and disrupt major strategic projects. Consequently, the Chinese leadership views any separatist tendencies or attempts to internationalize the Uyghur issue as part of a broader challenge to Chinese national unity, just as it views the Taiwan issue as a matter of sovereignty and territorial integrity rather than merely a transient political dispute.

In this context, Beijing sees a clear paradox in contemporary Western discourse, where the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are emphasized in some international disputes, while the concepts of self-determination and national rights are interpreted more flexibly when it comes to China. From the Chinese viewpoint, this selective approach often reflects strategic considerations linked to international balances more than it reflects a steadfast commitment to unified global legal standards.

Approaches that separate geopolitics from history and legal sovereignty produce incomplete analyses, as they reduce a complex issue into a normative binary (democracy/autocracy or self-determination/repression), while the reality requires a multi-layered reading that includes international law, political history, and the structure of the global system.

Thus, the Chinese position is based on a firm and clear principle: the rejection of any formula that separates Taiwan from Chinese sovereignty under any name, while keeping the option of peaceful settlement within the framework of one state. In contrast, Beijing views any attempt to transform the existing situation into permanent legal independence as a direct transgression of existing international legal references and a challenge to the structure of the international system as it was formed after 1945.

In conclusion, the Taiwan issue is not posed from the Chinese perspective as an open negotiation about identity or sovereignty, but as a matter concerning state integrity and territorial unity. Within this framework, issues like Xinjiang and other matters related to China's national security are understood as part of a broader struggle over sovereignty and territorial unity and China's position in the transforming international system, rather than as issues separate from the general geopolitical context governing international relations in the twenty-first century.