Opinion Piece: The Reality and Myth of the Beidaihe Meeting Tests Taiwan's Study of the Chinese Communist Party

Green media recently reported that the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) Beidaihe meeting issued "extremely harsh instructions" toward Taiwan. President Lai Qingde then amplified this claim during a DPP Central Standing Committee meeting, specifying four directives: blocking defense budgets, strengthening the 'fifth column,' interfering in the 2026 elections, and more. As elections approach, the recurring narrative of "Communist conspiracies" is nothing new. What's noteworthy is that such unsubstantiated claims repeatedly succeed—largely because Taiwan's understanding of CCP studies has become so shallow that it lacks the ability to discern truth from fiction.

First, did the Beidaihe meeting actually take place this year? The Beidaihe summer working system began in 1953, was interrupted during the Cultural Revolution, and remained suspended for long periods after 2003. Under Xi Jinping, no official agenda has been publicly restored. Observers can only speculate about the secretive closed-door meeting based on indirect signs—such as whether Politburo Standing Committee members halt public appearances or whether security measures are heightened.

This year, there were indeed signs of activity, but the only officially confirmed event was on August 3, when Cai Qi, representing Xi Jinping, visited and慰慰 experts on summer vacation. Accompanied by Politburo member Shi Taifeng and State Councilor Wu Zhenglong, the event focused on experts in basic research, core technologies, and philosophy and social sciences. The theme was "Striving for the 15th Five-Year Plan," centered on the national strategy of talent development. There was no mention of defense budgets, united front work, or elections. The only verifiable "Beidaihe" event was a routine public talent-related activity—entirely different from the closed-door Politburo meeting claimed by green media to have issued "four anti-Taiwan directives." To date, no first-hand evidence supports the latter.

Moreover, the CCP has dedicated mechanisms for Taiwan affairs, such as the Central Taiwan Work Conference and the Taiwan Affairs Leading Group. If new directives were issued, they would logically be announced through these formal channels, not through an informal gathering ostensibly for talent rest and recuperation. Blurring the line between a public event and a legendary closed-door decision-making session—and then attaching specific political instructions—is a classic misuse of "Kremlinology"-style speculation. Rigorous researchers would never make such a hasty leap.

Yet, the DPP and some media outlets do precisely this—packaging the most uncertain information as the most definitive accusation. This tactic works not because the arguments are sound, but because Taiwan's society broadly lacks the capacity to verify claims. In recent years, Taiwan's study of the CCP and China has steadily weakened: government think tanks face shrinking resources, talent development suffers from generational gaps, and serious CCP research is increasingly neglected. Meanwhile, media outlets favor sensational leaks over rigorous analysis. Once a global hub for CCP political studies due to its geographical and linguistic advantages, Taiwan is rapidly losing this edge.

When society lacks basic knowledge of CCP decision-making mechanisms, a politician's mere statement—"instructions came from Beidaihe"—can trigger panic and mobilization, simply because most people cannot verify it and must choose between belief and skepticism. This is the root reason why "Communist conspiracies" repeatedly succeed: not because the adversary is all-powerful, but because we have abandoned our ability to understand them.

Know the enemy, know yourself, and you need not fear a hundred battles. For Taiwan to stand firm in cross-strait competition, it must rely on solid, rigorous CCP research—building genuine judgment through long-term personnel observation and policy context analysis, not on pre-election leaks. Sadly, the government's deliberate neglect of China research, academia's marginalization of the field, and societal ignorance reinforce each other in a vicious cycle. Every election, "Communist conspiracies" easily succeed—not because the CCP is terrifying, but because Taiwan's capacity to understand its counterpart has reached a point of existential crisis. Rebuilding orthodox, rigorous CCP research is now an urgent priority.

*The author is a Ph.D. in law and a researcher.