Is Taiwan merely a piece of land to be reunified with the country, or does it hold the key to resolving a century-old civil war? The Taiwan question is often oversimplified as a matter of sovereignty — that China seeks to reclaim land once lost to a colonial invader. In the West, some wrongly equate China’s interest in Taiwan with “land-grabbing”, likening it to past Western and Japanese colonial acts. This perspective ignores the deeper, more complex roots of the conflict: the unresolved War of Liberation (1946-49), commonly known in the West as the Chinese Civil War, which, despite its apparent conclusion in 1949, was artificially prolonged by external intervention. Taiwan remains an internal issue that concerns all Chinese people on the mainland and on the island, and to frame it otherwise is to ignore the truth and miss the historical essence of the dispute.

Recently, the island’s leader, Lai Ching-te, has committed logical fallacies in his simplistic framing of the Taiwan question as China merely seeking to reclaim lost territory. His perspective neglects the fundamental fact that Taiwan’s status is intricately linked to the civil war between the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Kuomintang (KMT). This epic conflict resulted in the 1949 establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland, while the KMT regime retreated to Taiwan, leaving the island in a state of limbo ever since.

To understand the true nature of the Taiwan question, one must recognize that it is not just about territorial claims but about resolving the unfinished business of this civil war. The division of the Chinese mainland and Taiwan island was not a natural outcome of internal developments but was heavily influenced by Cold War geopolitics. The United States, seeking to “contain communism”, supported the Taiwan regime. This external factor created an artificial situation of divided nations, such as the division of Germany into East and West, and Vietnam into North and South. Despite the civil war schism, both Mao Zedong in Beijing and Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan consistently upheld the one-China principle.

Lai’s recent claim that China is merely trying to recover land stolen by Japan during its colonial period is a misleading red herring. While it is true that Taiwan was unlawfully seized by Japan due to the 1895 First Sino-Japanese War, and Taiwan was returned to China in 1945 after World War II, these historical facts do not capture the full complexity of the issue. The real question is not about reversing the onerous legacy of Japanese colonialism, but about how to achieve the ultimate reunification of the Chinese nation.

Moreover, the question of Chinese national reunification is not one that can be decided by Taiwan alone. Just as the US could not allow its 11 Southern states of the Confederacy to unilaterally declare their secession in the 19th century, Taiwan’s future must be decided by the entire Chinese nation. It must reflect the collective will of all Chinese people, both on the mainland and in Taiwan.

In this context, former Singaporean foreign minister George Yeo Yong-boon proposed a “Chinese Commonwealth” solution at the Asia-Pacific Forward Forum in Taipei in 2023. Yeo suggested a model that could allow Taiwan to maintain its political autonomy while being part of a broader Chinese Commonwealth. This approach could provide a framework for peaceful coexistence and cooperation, much like the unprecedented “one country, two systems” model of Hong Kong, but with modifications to address the specific concerns and realities of Taiwan. Yeo emphasized that Taiwan should not allow itself to become a US chess piece, warning that the longer Taiwan waits to negotiate with Beijing, the weaker its position will become. I agree with Yeo; the time to negotiate a decisive compromise is now.

Such a Chinese Commonwealth could serve as a middle ground, recognizing the reality of two different systems while acknowledging the common cultural, historical, and ethnic ties that bind Taiwan and the mainland. It would offer Taiwan a way to preserve its political institutions and way of life while addressing the mainland’s insistence on indivisible sovereignty. Taiwan’s population, primarily ethnic Han Chinese, shares deep cultural, linguistic, and historical ties with the mainland, particularly with those in Fujian province. Taiwan’s local language is nearly identical to the Minnan dialect spoken in southern Fujian. Yeo’s proposal offers a grand win-win solution, avoiding the pitfalls of a zero-sum game that could lead to catastrophic conflict.

Taiwan must avoid the tragic and costly mistake of becoming Asia’s version of the 19th-century Confederate States, which triggered a bloody four-year civil war in the US by their seeking to secede from the Union. The separatist or independence attempt was resolutely opposed by then-US president Abraham Lincoln, who suppressed it with all-out military warfare, resulting in nearly 1 million military and civilian casualties. The last thing the Asia-Pacific realm needs is a conflict that could destabilize the world’s most economically dynamic region. Taiwan should also not risk becoming a dangerous flashpoint for a great power confrontation, akin to what has tragically ruined Ukraine.

For the sake of Asian peace and prosperity, both sides must prioritize dialogue, economic exchanges, and compromise. I urge Mr Lai not to confuse or obfuscate the Taiwan question; it is not merely a territorial dispute but a complex political, historical, and moral issue rooted in the unfinished Chinese Civil War. Recognizing this reality is the first step toward finding a sustainable and peaceful resolution. Only through a nuanced understanding of history and culture, and a willingness to explore creative solutions like Yeo’s proposed “Chinese Commonwealth” can we hope to achieve lasting stability in the region.

The author is a multiaward-winning columnist for the Philippine Star, Abante and Bilyonaryo, an economics and politics analyst, a college teacher, and moderator of the Pandesal Forum.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.