Xi Jinping Says Taiwan’s ‘Complete Reunification’ Must Happen as Taipei Dismisses the Words as Nothing New

On Thursday, 12 November 2026, China’s President Xi Jinping stood in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People and said the words that have defined his government’s position on Taiwan for more than a decade — and said them in the strongest terms available to him. The tide of history cannot be stopped, he told his audience, and the complete reunification of the motherland must be realised, and it will certainly be realised. He pledged to pursue that goal peacefully, repeated the offer of “one country, two systems”, and said China was willing to talk to Taiwan while holding to the one-China principle. Within hours, Taiwan’s government had answered: the wording, it said, was not much different from the past, and there was nothing new in it. The exchange lasted less than a day, and neither side moved. Yet the speech still mattered, because of when it came, where it was given, and what was happening around Taiwan on the very same day — military aircraft in the skies, a warning from the world’s richest democracies the night before, and a summit with the President of the United States a week away. This is the story of the Xi Jinping Taiwan reunification November 2026 speech, what was actually said, how Taipei answered, and why a familiar message still drew the world’s attention.

1. What Xi Said in Beijing

The speech was delivered on a Thursday morning in Beijing, in the Great Hall of the People, the vast building on the western side of Tiananmen Square where China’s most formal political occasions are held. The audience was a gathering to mark the 160th birthday of Sun Yat-sen, the revolutionary leader who helped bring down China’s last imperial dynasty. It was a ceremonial occasion, not a press conference, and Xi was not taking questions. That is part of why the speech was watched so closely: when China’s leader chooses a formal, symbolic occasion to speak about Taiwan, the choice of occasion is itself part of the message.

1.1 The words that travelled furthest

Two sentences from the speech travelled around the world within hours, carried first by the Reuters news agency and then by broadcasters and newspapers in every major capital. “The tide of history cannot be stopped,” Xi said, according to the Reuters report of the speech. “The complete reunification of the motherland must be realised, and it will certainly be realised.” The words “must” and “certainly” did the heavy lifting. The first turns reunification from a hope into an obligation. The second turns it from a possibility into a certainty. Together they leave no room for the idea that the question might simply be left open indefinitely. Xi also described resolving the Taiwan question as an “unwavering historical mission” of the Communist Party of China, a phrase that ties the issue directly to the party’s own sense of purpose and to its claim to be the force that completes the work of China’s modern history. None of the wording was new in substance — Xi has used similar language before — but the setting and the emphasis gave the familiar words a fresh edge, and that is why newsrooms treated the speech as a leading story rather than a routine anniversary address.

1.2 The setting: Sun Yat-sen’s 160th birthday

The occasion matters because Sun Yat-sen is one of the very few figures claimed by both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Born in 1866, Sun led the revolution of 1911 that ended more than two thousand years of imperial rule in China and ushered in the Republic of China. He is honoured in Beijing as the forerunner of the revolution and in Taipei as the founding father of the Republic of China, the formal name under which Taiwan’s government still operates. By choosing the 160th anniversary of Sun’s birth to deliver a speech about reunification, Xi was reaching for that shared history. The argument, in effect, was that the revolution Sun began remains unfinished while the two sides of the strait are governed separately, and that completing it is a duty owed to history rather than a policy choice of the present government. It is a framing Xi has used before, and it is one reason the speech was delivered in the Great Hall of the People rather than in a more ordinary setting. The symbolism was aimed at least as much at audiences inside China as at anyone abroad: it presented reunification not as an act of power but as the completion of a national story that began more than a century ago.

2. The Pledge of Peaceful Reunification

The second half of Xi’s message was the pledge that accompanied the firm words. China, he said, adheres to peaceful reunification and to the policy of “one country, two systems”, and it is willing to hold talks with Taiwan while upholding the one-China principle — Beijing’s position that both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of one country. The pledge is important because it is the part of the speech that other governments will quote back to Beijing in the months ahead, and it is also the part that Taipei’s government has repeatedly said it does not accept.

2.1 “One country, two systems” — again

The formula “one country, two systems” is nearly forty years old. It was first developed in the 1980s as a way of bringing Hong Kong and Macau back under Chinese sovereignty while allowing them to keep their own economic and legal systems for a period. Beijing has long offered the same formula to Taiwan: the island would come under Chinese sovereignty, it would be told, while keeping its own system of government, its armed forces and its way of life. The offer has never been accepted by any major political party in Taiwan, and opposition to it has hardened sharply since 2019, when the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and Beijing’s subsequent security law there convinced many people in Taiwan that the promise of autonomy could not be relied upon. Taiwan’s government has said repeatedly that the island’s future must be decided by its own people, and polling in Taiwan has consistently shown very low support for the “one country, two systems” model. Xi’s decision to repeat the offer anyway, in the same speech in which he called reunification an unwavering mission, suggests that Beijing is not offering a new deal. It is restating the old one and insisting that the door to talks remains open — on Beijing’s terms.

2.2 What he did not say about force

One of the most closely watched details of the speech was what it left out. According to the Reuters report, Xi made no mention of the use of force. That absence was noted in newsrooms because it cuts both ways. On one reading, the omission supports the peaceful framing: a leader who wanted to threaten war would not have left the threat out of a speech designed to be heard around the world. On another reading, the omission means very little, because Beijing has never formally renounced the use of force over Taiwan, and Xi has said in the past that China reserves the right to use all necessary measures. The speech did not change that long-standing position, and it did not announce any new timetable for reunification. It did not say when reunification must happen, or by what means, or what would trigger a different approach. What it did do was to pair an absolute statement of intent — reunification “must” and “certainly” will happen — with a pledge to pursue it peacefully, and to leave the question of how the two halves of that promise fit together unanswered. That ambiguity is deliberate, and it is why governments in Taipei, Washington, Tokyo and Canberra will spend the coming days reading the full text of the speech line by line, looking for any shift in tone that the first reports may have missed.

3. Taipei’s Answer: Nothing New

Taiwan’s response came quickly, and it was deliberately flat. The government in Taipei did not treat the speech as a crisis, did not summon an ambassador, and did not announce any new policy in reply. Instead it dismissed the remarks as familiar, and in doing so it tried to deny the speech the status of a turning point. That restraint is itself a policy: Taipei has learned that treating every statement from Beijing as an emergency only raises the temperature, and its leaders prefer to answer in a tone that signals steadiness to their own public and to their allies.

3.1 The Mainland Affairs Council’s dismissal

The formal response came from Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, the government body that handles relations with Beijing. Its spokesperson, Liang Wen-chieh, told reporters that the wording on unification was not much different from the past, and Taiwan’s government dismissed the remarks as nothing new. The message was aimed at two audiences at once. To people in Taiwan, it said that nothing had changed and there was no reason to be alarmed. To the rest of the world, it said that Beijing’s position was already well known and that the speech added nothing to it. The council’s dismissal also carried an implicit point about the “one country, two systems” offer: Taipei has rejected that model so often, and so clearly, that repeating it does not make it more attractive. Taiwan’s position, as its government has stated it many times, is that the island is already a self-governing democracy, that its future must be decided by its 23 million people, and that no arrangement imposed from Beijing can substitute for that. The council did not engage with Xi’s historical argument about Sun Yat-sen, and it did not respond to the claim that reunification is an unavoidable tide of history. It simply declined to accept the premise.

3.2 Why Taiwan’s parties reject the offer

The rejection of “one country, two systems” is one of the few points on which Taiwan’s main political parties broadly agree, even though they disagree sharply about almost everything else. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party has long argued that Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country in practice, whatever its formal name, and that Beijing’s offer is a trap. The main opposition party, the Kuomintang, which once governed all of China and still claims the Republic of China as its heritage, has also rejected the formula, saying it has no support among the Taiwanese public. The reasons are practical as well as principled. People in Taiwan look at Hong Kong, where the promise of a high degree of autonomy was followed by a national security law, the jailing of opposition figures and the reshaping of the electoral system, and they conclude that the same promise would not hold for them. They also look at their own lives — free elections, a free press, an independent judiciary — and see little in Beijing’s offer that would preserve them. That is why, when Xi repeats the offer, the response in Taipei is not a counter-offer but a shrug. The offer is not being negotiated. It is being declined, again, in the same words as before.

4. The Military Picture on the Same Day

While the speeches were being reported, Taiwan’s defence ministry was counting aircraft. On the same Thursday that Xi spoke in Beijing, the ministry said it had detected 29 Chinese military aircraft, including J-16 fighter jets and drones, carrying out what it described as a “joint combat readiness patrol” around Taiwan in conjunction with Chinese warships. The timing — a patrol on the day of a major speech about reunification — was unlikely to be a coincidence, and it was read in Taipei as a reminder that the peaceful words in the Great Hall of the People are backed by a military presence that grows more capable every year.

4.1 Twenty-nine aircraft around the island

The figure of 29 aircraft is not the largest number Taiwan has reported in a single day. On some days in recent years the count has run into the dozens, and on a few occasions it has passed one hundred. But the composition of this patrol mattered. The J-16 is a modern multi-role fighter, a mainstay of China’s air force, and the inclusion of drones alongside crewed fighters reflects the way Chinese patrols have evolved from simple fly-bys into rehearsals for coordinated operations. A “joint combat readiness patrol” is the name Taiwan’s defence ministry gives to operations in which aircraft and warships operate together around the island, practising the kind of coordination that would be needed in a blockade or a wider conflict. Taiwan’s ministry tracks these patrols daily and publishes the numbers, so the public in Taiwan has grown used to seeing them. But the ministry also makes a point of noting when a patrol coincides with a political event in Beijing, because the coincidence is part of the pressure. The aircraft do not fire, and they do not enter Taiwan’s airspace over the island itself. They operate in the air defence identification zone, the buffer area around the island where Taiwan tracks incoming aircraft. Even so, each patrol forces Taiwan to scramble its own jets, burn fuel, wear out airframes and keep its air defences on alert — a slow, grinding cost that adds up over months and years.

4.2 Patrols, pressure and the daily count

The patrols are one part of a wider pattern of pressure that has become routine around Taiwan. Chinese warships sail through the strait and around the island. Coast guard vessels operate near Taiwan’s outlying islands. Cyber attacks target government systems. Disinformation campaigns circulate on social media. None of these actions, on its own, amounts to a crisis. Together they form what analysts call grey-zone pressure: actions that fall short of war but are designed to wear down an opponent, test its responses and normalise a Chinese military presence ever closer to the island. Beijing describes the patrols as legitimate exercises in its own territory and waters, and it rejects the idea that they are a threat. Taipei describes them as intimidation. The disagreement over how to describe the same flights is itself part of the dispute. What is not in dispute is the direction of travel: the patrols have grown larger, more frequent and more complex over the past five years, and the gap between what China can do around Taiwan and what Taiwan can do in response has widened. Xi’s speech, with its promise of peaceful reunification and its silence on force, sits alongside that military reality, and the two have to be read together. The words say the goal is peace. The patrols say the pressure will continue regardless.

5. Seventy-Seven Years Apart: How We Got Here

To understand why a speech about reunification still dominates the news in 2026, it helps to know how the two sides of the Taiwan Strait came to be governed separately in the first place. The division is not ancient. It is the product of a civil war that ended, without ever formally ending, seventy-seven years ago — and of the decades of separate development that followed.

5.1 1949 and the two governments

In 1949, after years of civil war, the Communist Party under Mao Zedong took control of mainland China and founded the People’s Republic of China in Beijing. The defeated Nationalist government, led by Chiang Kai-shek, retreated to the island of Taiwan, taking with it the name Republic of China, the gold reserves and a large part of the army. Both governments claimed to be the legitimate government of all of China. For decades the rest of the world had to choose between them, and in 1971 the United Nations gave China’s seat to Beijing. In 1979 the United States switched its formal diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, while continuing to sell arms to Taiwan and to maintain an unofficial relationship through a de facto embassy. Since then Taiwan has governed itself as a separate, democratic state, with its own elected president, its own military, its own currency and its own passport — but with formal diplomatic recognition from only a small number of countries. Beijing has never accepted that arrangement as permanent. It regards Taiwan as a province of China that must eventually be reunified, by peaceful means if possible. Taipei regards the status quo — self-government without a formal declaration of independence — as the arrangement that keeps the peace. The gap between those two positions is the Taiwan question, and it has outlasted the Cold War, the rise of China as an economic superpower, and three generations of leaders on both sides.

5.2 Sun Yat-sen and the shared history claim

Sun Yat-sen matters to this story because he is the one figure both sides claim without embarrassment. He was born in 1866 in Guangdong province, studied medicine in Hong Kong, and spent years organising against the Qing dynasty before the uprising of 1911 brought the empire down. The Republic of China that followed was the first republic in Asia, and Sun is remembered as its founding father in Taiwan and as the forerunner of the revolution in mainland China. His political philosophy, the Three Principles of the People — nationalism, democracy and the people’s livelihood — is taught on both sides of the strait, though each side emphasises different parts of it. When Xi speaks about Sun on the 160th anniversary of his birth, he is invoking a history that predates the Communist Party, predates the civil war and predates the division itself. The argument is that the division is an interruption in a longer story, and that reunification is the restoration of something that was always meant to be whole. Taipei’s answer, implicit in its dismissal of the speech, is that shared history does not settle the question of who governs whom. The people of Taiwan, it argues, have built a democracy of their own, and a common ancestor does not give Beijing the right to decide their future. Both arguments are sincere. Neither has persuaded the other side in seventy-seven years.

6. The Week Around the Speech

No speech by a Chinese leader about Taiwan happens in a vacuum. Xi’s address came in the middle of a crowded week for the region, with a warning from the world’s richest democracies the night before, a major international summit a week away, and a meeting with the President of the United States on the horizon. Each of those events shaped how the speech was received, and each will shape what happens next.

6.1 The G7 warning on waters east of Taiwan

On the night before Xi’s speech, the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven — the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan — released a joint declaration saying that China’s increasingly assertive actions in the waters east of Taiwan threaten regional stability and freedom of navigation. The declaration was the latest in a series of G7 statements that have grown sharper on Taiwan in recent years, and it reflected a concern shared well beyond the G7: that the military pressure around the island, and the rhetoric that accompanies it, raises the risk of an accident or a miscalculation that could spiral into a wider crisis. Beijing rejected the declaration, as it has rejected similar statements before, saying that Taiwan is an internal matter and that outside countries have no right to intervene. The timing — a G7 warning one night, a Xi speech the next morning — was not coordinated, but the two events spoke to each other. The G7 was warning about Chinese actions. Xi was asserting a Chinese right. The gap between those two positions is the space in which the risk of a crisis lives, and it is why governments in the region watch every statement from Beijing and every patrol around the island with the same careful attention.

6.2 APEC in Shenzhen and the Trump meeting

Xi’s speech also came a week ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Shenzhen, the southern Chinese technology hub, where he is due to meet United States President Donald Trump again. The meeting is expected to be one of the most closely watched encounters of the year, because the United States is Taiwan’s most important unofficial ally and its main supplier of arms, and because the Trump administration’s approach to China has combined trade pressure with a stated desire for a stable relationship. Taiwan will be on the agenda whether either leader wants it there or not, because it is the issue on which a misunderstanding between Washington and Beijing carries the highest stakes. The speech can therefore be read as a piece of stage-setting: a public restatement of Beijing’s position, delivered in firm language, just before the two leaders sit down together. It tells Washington that Beijing’s position has not softened, and it tells the region that the summit will not produce a new understanding on Taiwan. What it does not tell anyone is what Xi will say to Trump in private, or what Trump will say in return. Those conversations will happen behind closed doors, and their outcome will not be known until the leaders themselves choose to describe it.

7. Why the Timing Matters Now

If the words themselves were not new, why did the speech lead the news? The answer lies in the calendar. Two events in the coming weeks give the speech a significance it would not have had at another moment: local elections in Taiwan, and a crowded season of diplomacy between the great powers.

7.1 Local elections two weeks away

Taiwan is a little more than two weeks away from important local elections, in which voters will choose mayors, councillors and local officials across the island. Local elections in Taiwan are not usually fought on the question of relations with Beijing — voters care more about roads, schools and the cost of living — but the cross-strait question is never far from the surface, and both major parties use it to frame the choice. The ruling party presents itself as the defender of Taiwan’s democracy against pressure from Beijing. The opposition presents itself as the party that can manage the relationship with Beijing and keep the peace. A speech from Xi, delivered in the middle of the campaign, becomes part of that argument whether Beijing intends it to or not. Supporters of the ruling party will point to the speech as proof that Beijing’s ambitions have not changed and that Taiwan must stand firm. Supporters of the opposition will point to the pledge of peaceful reunification as proof that dialogue is still possible. Neither reading is wrong, and neither settles the election. But the speech guarantees that the Taiwan question will be part of the campaign in its final two weeks, and it gives both sides fresh material for their closing arguments.

7.2 The wider US-China calendar

The speech also lands in a season when the United States and China are negotiating the terms of their rivalry across several fronts at once: trade, technology, the war in Ukraine, and the future of the Indo-Pacific. The Trump administration has imposed tariffs, restricted technology exports and pressed its allies to reduce their dependence on Chinese supply chains, while also seeking Beijing’s cooperation on issues where the two countries’ interests overlap. Taiwan sits at the intersection of all of those questions, because it is the world’s leading producer of the most advanced computer chips, because it sits astride the sea lanes through which much of Asia’s trade passes, and because it is the one issue on which Beijing has said it will not compromise. In that context, a speech that restates Beijing’s position in absolute terms is a signal to Washington as much as to Taipei: it says that no trade deal, no summit and no personal relationship between leaders will change China’s position on Taiwan. Whether Washington hears that signal as a warning or as a statement of the obvious depends on who is listening. But it is a signal that will be remembered when the two presidents meet in Shenzhen, and it will be remembered again the next time the question of arms sales to Taiwan comes up in Washington.

8. What Happens Next

The speech is over, the response has been given, and the patrols will continue. What happens next depends on a series of events that are already scheduled, and on a series of questions that no one can yet answer. The coming days will provide some of the answers. The rest will take months, or years, to emerge.

8.1 The questions Taipei and Washington are asking

In Taipei, the immediate question is whether the patrols around the island will intensify in the days after the speech, and whether Beijing will follow the words with actions — more aircraft, more warships, or a new round of exercises. Taiwan’s defence ministry will be watching the daily count, and its armed forces will remain on alert, as they always are. In Washington, the question is how the speech affects the preparations for the Shenzhen meeting, and whether the Trump administration will respond publicly or let the speech pass without comment. In Tokyo and Canberra, the question is whether the G7 declaration and the Xi speech together mark a new phase of tension, or simply the latest exchange in a long-running argument. And in Beijing, the question is whether the speech achieved what it was meant to achieve: a firm restatement of principle, delivered at a moment of maximum attention, without provoking a crisis. None of those questions has an answer yet. What is clear is that the speech has not changed the fundamental positions of any of the parties, and that the standoff over Taiwan will continue in the same form it has taken for years: words from Beijing, a flat response from Taipei, patrols in the strait, and warnings from the democracies that watch the island’s fate.

8.2 The Bottom Line

Xi Jinping said on Thursday that the complete reunification of Taiwan with the motherland must happen and certainly will happen, and he pledged to pursue that goal peacefully through “one country, two systems” and talks under the one-China principle. Taipei dismissed the remarks as nothing new, and the day’s military patrol — 29 Chinese aircraft around the island — went ahead as usual. Nothing in the speech announced a timetable, a new offer or a change in Beijing’s long-standing refusal to renounce the use of force. What it did was restate, in the strongest possible language and on a symbolic occasion, a position that has not moved in a decade, a week before Xi meets Donald Trump in Shenzhen and a little more than two weeks before Taiwan’s local elections. The coming days will provide the answers to whether the patrols intensify, whether the summit changes the tone, and whether the elections shift the politics in Taipei. Until then, the Taiwan question remains what it has been for seventy-seven years: the most dangerous unresolved issue in Asia, restated once more, and still without a resolution in sight. The coming days will provide the answers.

Comments

comments