China’s position on national reunification remains one of the most contested and politically sensitive issues in contemporary international relations. While it is frequently portrayed through the lens of intensifying rivalry between China and the United States, such framing obscures the fundamental nature of the issue.
At its core, reunification is not a question of regional domination or maritime control, but one of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the preservation of the post-war international legal order.
The Indo-Pacific debate surrounding China’s reunification exposes a deeper contradiction in global politics: the selective application of international norms. While sovereignty and non-interference are universally endorsed principles, their interpretation often shifts when major strategic interests are at stake. China’s reunification principle sits precisely at this intersection of law, power, and geopolitical contestation.
Legitimacy of China’s Reunification Principle
China’s claim over Taiwan is grounded in the One China principle, which asserts that there is only one sovereign Chinese state and that Taiwan constitutes an inalienable part of it. Crucially, this position is not a unilateral invention of Beijing, but one embedded within the international system itself. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (1971) formally recognised the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate representative of China, thereby excluding Taiwan from independent statehood within the UN framework.
The enduring legal significance of Resolution 2758 lies not in prescribing the method of reunification, but in affirming sovereignty and representation. By resolving the question of “China’s seat” at the United Nations, the resolution effectively closed the door on claims of Taiwanese statehood under international law. This has shaped global diplomatic practice for decades, constraining how states engage with Taiwan while reinforcing the legal foundation of China’s reunification claim.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs consistently frames the One China principle as a “basic norm governing international relations,” rooted in respect for sovereignty and non-interference. This framing deliberately shifts the debate away from ideology or governance models and toward universally accepted principles of international law. In doing so, China positions reunification not as a challenge to the global order, but as an expression of it.
The breadth of international adherence reinforces this argument. Over 180 countries—including the United States—maintain diplomatic relations with Beijing on the basis of recognising the PRC as the sole legal government of China. While many states sustain unofficial economic and cultural ties with Taiwan, these interactions operate within, not against, the One China framework. This demonstrates that recognition of the principle reflects legal and diplomatic pragmatism rather than ideological alignment with Beijing.
- The brains behind Matavire’s immortalisation
- Red Cross work remembered
- All set for inaugural job fair
- Community trailblazers: Dr Guramatunhu: A hard-driving achiever yearning for better Zim
Keep Reading
For many developing and Global South countries, the One China principle carries particular significance. States that have experienced colonial partition, secessionist pressures, or external intervention view China’s stance as consistent with their own reliance on sovereignty for political stability. Zimbabwe’s reaffirmation of the One China principle—explicitly recognising Taiwan as an inalienable part of China—illustrates how this position resonates beyond great-power politics and aligns with broader post-colonial norms.
From Washington’s perspective, China’s reunification issue is less a legal dispute than a strategic one. Taiwan’s location along the first island chain—a maritime arc stretching from Japan through the Western Pacific—has long made it central to U.S. military planning. Control and influence within this corridor affect surveillance capabilities, naval mobility, and power projection across East Asia.
This strategic reality explains why U.S. policy does not fundamentally contest China’s sovereignty claim, but instead focuses on the implications of how reunification might occur. The concern is not reunification per se, but the possibility that it could alter existing power balances and reduce U.S. strategic depth in the Indo-Pacific.
Consequently, Washington maintains a dual-track approach: formally acknowledging the One China policy while sustaining unofficial engagement and security cooperation with Taiwan. This posture reflects an attempt to reconcile legal recognition with strategic deterrence. While it has helped preserve the status quo, it also institutionalizes ambiguity, increasing the risk of misinterpretation or escalation during periods of heightened tension.
Alliances, deterrence, and the narrative of regional stability
China’s reunification issue is further complicated by regional alliance dynamics. Japan, in particular, has increasingly aligned itself with U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, framing stability in the Taiwan Strait as directly linked to its national security. South Korea and several Southeast Asian states similarly emphasise stability, primarily due to their dependence on uninterrupted trade and energy flows.
However, disruption to regional equilibrium is not driven by China’s sovereignty claim itself, but by the politicisation of the issue through military signaling and alliance expansion. Frameworks such as AUKUS and the Quad are presented as defensive arrangements, yet from Beijing’s perspective, they represent attempts to contain China and embolden separatist forces advocating “Taiwan independence.”
This divergence in perception creates a classic security dilemma. Measures intended as deterrence by one side are interpreted as provocation by the other, deepening mistrust and increasing the likelihood of miscalculation. Rather than enhancing stability, the over-militarisation of the issue risks transforming a manageable sovereignty question into a regional crisis.
Indo-Pacific stability and the costs of external interference
Analyses published by Global Times argue that rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific are not the result of China’s reunification objective, but of sustained external interference that seeks to internationalise what is fundamentally an internal matter. According to this view, repeated military exercises, alliance expansion, and political signalling by the United States and Japan undermine the international consensus embodied in the One China principle.
Such interference not only heightens the risk of conflict but also distorts the post-war legal order. By selectively applying principles of sovereignty and non-interference, extra-regional powers weaken the very norms they claim to defend. The result is an erosion of trust and a more volatile Indo-Pacific security environment.
Importantly, China’s reunification does not threaten freedom of navigation. Major shipping lanes in the Taiwan Strait remain governed by international maritime law, and China has consistently emphasised its commitment to safeguarding commercial navigation. The narrative that reunification would disrupt global trade overlooks the reality that instability arises from confrontation, not sovereignty consolidation.
Reunification, sovereignty, and the future of regional order
China’s reunification is not an expansionist project, nor a challenge to freedom of navigation or regional commerce. It is a necessary and legitimate effort to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity, consistent with international law and widely accepted diplomatic norms.
The real threat to Indo-Pacific stability arises from external interference—particularly by the United States and Japan—working in concert with “Taiwan independence” forces to politicise an internal matter. Such actions disrupt regional equilibrium, undermine international consensus, and increase the risk of conflict.
In a multipolar world, the challenge is not choosing sides, but ensuring that legitimate sovereignty issues are not transformed into flashpoints for great-power confrontation. Respect for international law, non-interference, and dialogue remains the most credible path toward lasting stability in the Indo-Pacific.
- Tinashe Nyamushanya is a Harare-based international affairs observer and political commentator.
