By Elizabeth Chien-Hale
The standoff between the two governments on either side of the Taiwan Strait has now lasted for 76 years – more than my lifetime. The relationship has had its ups and downs, to say the least. It re-entered a period of high tension after a pro-independence president was voted into office in Taiwan in 2024. In May of this year, at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue security conference in Singapore, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan “could be imminent.” He claimed that Beijing is “credibly preparing” to use military force to upend the “balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.”
While I can’t assess the accuracy of Hegseth’s prediction or other similar comments from US government and military officials over the past few years, I do feel the urgent need for immediate efforts to stabilize the situation or even find a long-term peaceful solution.
The US government presents itself as Taiwan’s protector and savior. But we should note that the rising cross-strait tension is at least partially linked to US involvement. As China is now perceived in Washington more as a competitor than a partner, senior US officials seem more sympathetic than in the past to Taiwan’s desire for sovereignty or perhaps independence, as evidenced by visits to Taiwan by high-level US officials, recently passed friendly legislation toward Taiwan (here and here), and the souring US-China relationship.
[W]e should note that the rising cross-strait tension is at least partially linked to US involvement
Over the decades, China has put forward various plans and policy frameworks for achieving unification with Taiwan, all of which include the assertion that Taiwan is an integral part of China. The consistent theme is “one country, two systems” — that is, unification with some provision for local autonomy. However, China asserts its right to use any means necessary to achieve the ultimate goal, from peaceful economic integration to more assertive measures including diplomatic pressure and military force.
Taiwan’s positions have varied more, according to the president in office at the time. Both Kuomintang (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leaders have consistently insisted on maintaining Taiwan’s sovereignty and democratic way of life, differing only on their degrees of openness to economic cooperation and the level of political dialogue.
President Lee Teng-Hui (1988-2000), Taiwan’s first president from outside the Chiang family, laid the foundation for opening communication between China and Taiwan on an “equal” basis. President Chen Shui-Bian, the first elected DPP president (2000-2008), openly advocated the doctrine of “one country on each side” of the strait, claiming Taiwan and China should be considered separate entities with Taiwan enjoying sovereign status. President Chen is a colorful character and has gotten himself into deep trouble both in and outside of Taiwan. It is not surprising that he was the first Taiwan president to chart a completely new course.
Next came President Ma Ying-Jeou, a lifelong KMT member. He advocated for closer ties between Taiwan and China during his two terms between 2008-2016. He supported the “1992 Consensus,” which acknowledges that there is only one China, but the definition of “China” is subject to each side’s independent interpretation. This term, the 1992 Consensus, was coined to describe the outcome of a 1992 meeting between representatives from Beijing and Taipei. No formal document was signed at the meeting, but there were formal exchanges between the two parties showing official acknowledgement of the principle. Acceptance of the 1992 Consensus has since then been China’s minimum requirement for any future talks with Taiwan. President Ma also orchestrated a meeting between himself and China’s President Xi Jinping on November 7, 2015, marking a high point in the cross-strait relationship.
The warm feeling built during Ma’s presidency quickly dissipated when President Tsai Ing-Wen of the DPP succeeded him. President Tsai rejected the 1992 Consensus. She emphasized maintaining the status quo and resisting unification pressures while seeking to strengthen Taiwan's international presence and alliances. Under her rule, Taiwan continued to assert its identity and autonomy, wary of any proposals that might compromise its democratic governance and freedoms. While President Tsai did not make major policy statements about Taiwan’s status, and several small countries revoked diplomatic relationships with Taiwan during her term, she was able to strengthen Taiwan’s relationship with the United States. Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August 2022 and met with President Tsai. Kevin McCarthy, the next US house speaker, met with President Tsai in April 2023 in California. Both meetings provoked strong criticism from China.
The incumbent President Ching-Te Lai described himself before becoming president as a “pragmatic worker for Taiwan independence.” He first used this phrase in 2017, stating that while he supports Taiwan’s sovereignty, he also believes Taiwan is already independent under its official name of the Republic of China. Since becoming president, he has used strong language such as “foreign hostile force” when referring to China. He also recently said that the unification between China and Taiwan can be analogized to a merger between a big company and a small company, seemingly waiting for China to name an offering price for unification. Fair to say that he does not have a firm policy yet.
In summarizing the past positions and their consequences, it is clear that the 1992 Consensus provides a vague platform on which both sides were able to communicate for a while. The DPP presidents’ refusal to acknowledge the consensus has brought official communication to a halt. On the other hand, the hardened positions and aggressive military actions from China also raised concerns not just from Taiwan but also the United States and its allies.
Toward the end of his term, President Ma raised the need to complete a peace agreement with China to ensure sustained peaceful co-existence. We should heed his call. The need for a peace agreement is stronger than ever as we hear daily news regarding China’s plans and deadlines to unify by force. Private citizens from Taiwan and China have put forward suggestions for a peace agreement, but no serious efforts are underway.
The need for a peace agreement is stronger than ever as we hear daily news regarding China’s plans and deadlines to unify by force
There is a great political distance between China’s demand for “one country, two systems” and Taiwan’s desire for sovereignty. However, I note that Taiwan only demands sovereignty, not statehood. While a state is a sovereign, which by definition has the ability to govern itself, the reverse is not necessarily true. A framework that accommodates both sides’ fundamental demands may be one under which Taiwan is allowed to exercise sovereign power over its territory without being a state. For example, some indigenous groups have gained recognition as domestic dependent nations, meaning they have sovereignty but also a unique relationship with a central government.
If we can separate sovereignty from statehood, the basic demands from both sides are satisfied, and we can move toward signing a peaceful co-existence agreement. In order for this agreement to be successfully implemented, a strong, independent international monitoring organization will need to be established to ensure compliance and integrity of the terms and to guarantee Taiwan’s safety from Chinese aggression. Given China’s constant fear of US interference, it may also help if the US steps away from the role of Taiwan’s protector. However, there are plenty of neutral governments with enough credibility to steer this international monitoring organization. India, Turkey, or Indonesia are possible candidates.
All parties are focused on building their arsenals and preparedness for a conflict. Why isn’t anyone working toward a peace agreement?
* * *
Elizabeth Chien-Hale is a native of Taiwan and attorney practicing in California. She was a visiting scholar at the U.S.-Asia Law Institute in 2024-2025.
Suggested Citation:
Elizabeth Chien-Hale, “We Need a China-Taiwan Peace Agreement,” USALI Perspectives, 6, No. 3 , November 7, 2025, https://usali.org/usali-perspectives-blog/we-need-a-china-taiwan-peace-agreement.
The views expressed in USALI Perspectives are those of the authors, and do not represent those of USALI or NYU.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.