Editor's note: On Oct 15, a seminar marking the 80th anniversary of Taiwan's restoration to China was held at Beijing Union University. Experts reviewed historical documents, reaffirmed the legal basis of Taiwan's return to the motherland, and rebutted the so-called "undetermined status of Taiwan" narrative. Excerpts follow:
UN resolution requires following one-China principle
Taiwan's restoration to China was the outcome of the victory in the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931-45) and the World Anti-Fascist War. Following their summit in Cairo, Egypt, on Dec 1, 1943, China, the United States and the United Kingdom issued the Cairo Declaration, which unequivocally stated that the three Allied powers will ensure all the Chinese territories captured and occupied by Japan, including Northeast China, Taiwan and Penghu Islands, are restored to China. As a pivotal document in international law, the Cairo Declaration laid the groundwork for the establishment of the postwar world order, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.
On July 26, 1945, the same three countries issued the Potsdam Proclamation, stipulating the terms of Japan's surrender. Article 8 of the proclamation says "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine".
As an instrument of Japan's surrender, the Potsdam Proclamation has legally binding force in international law. On Aug 14,1945, Japan officially accepted the Potsdam Proclamation. The next month, during the formal Japanese surrender ceremony aboard USS Missouri, the Japanese government's representative signed the Instrument of Surrender while committing to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation "in good faith".
Thus a legally interlocking chain was formed by the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, affirming that Japan must restore all Chinese territories including Taiwan to China. On Oct 25, 1945, the ceremony to accept Japan's surrender in the Taiwan province of the China war theater was held in Taipei, where Ando Rikichi, the Japanese government head on the island, signed the formal surrender document.
The Chinese government announced that Taiwan and the Penghu Islands had been restored to China, and it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan. From that point on, China recovered Taiwan de jure and de facto. And its subsequent administration and governance have been widely accepted and recognized by the international community, constituting an integral part of the international order based on international law.
The Democratic Progressive Party authorities' attempt to use the so-called "San Francisco Peace Treaty" to claim that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait "should not be subordinate to each other" is doomed to failure. The "peace treaty" is a product of a separate treaty between Japan and the US and its allies, which excluded most of the countries that resisted Japanese aggression, particularly China and the Soviet Union. The "peace treaty" violates a series of important international documents issued during and after World War II, making it illegal and invalid.
The island of Taiwan, as part of China, was not, is not and will not be entitled to keep any "diplomatic" relations with other countries. After the PRC was founded in 1949, the central government of the PRC rightfully became the sole legal government of China. China's sovereignty remains indivisible, and Taiwan's status as part of China's territory remains unchanged, both politically and legally. The government of the PRC naturally represents the whole China and fully enjoys and exercises China's sovereignty.
In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 with an overwhelming majority. The resolution says the consensus is "to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations". Hence, upholding and respecting the authority of the UN requires adherence to the one-China principle.
Wang Shushen is deputy director of the Institute of Taiwan Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Cross-Strait bonds are unbreakable
Being a signatory to the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, the United States never contested the fact that Taiwan is an integral part of China. After 1945, the US embassies and consulates in China repeatedly communicated with the Chinese government, confirming the restoration of Taiwan to China. In fact, until the Korean War broke out in 1950, the US Department of State clearly said that Taiwan is part of China.
However, as the Cold War intensified, the US gradually abandoned its international commitments in order to fulfill its narrow geopolitical goals. By passing legislation such as the Taiwan Relations Act, the US has emboldened "Taiwan independence" separatist forces and fostered the false narrative of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan".
By reneging on its commitments, the US has not only violated the fundamental principles of international law but also hurt Chinese people's sentiments.
The US is trying to build a narrative of the "undetermined status of Taiwan" by misusing its domestic legislation. For instance, the US has issued reports claiming that the Cairo Declaration is merely a statement of intent and not legally binding.
Such arguments disregard the fundamental principles of international law. The Cairo Declaration's legal force has been affirmed by Articles 3 and 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. By deliberately distorting these facts, the US is resorting to double standards to bully other countries and maintain its hegemony.
"Taiwan independence" separatist forces remain the gravest threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait. The Democratic Progressive Party authorities, colluding with external forces, have been de-Sinicizing the island's policies, altering history textbooks, creating higher barriers for cross-Strait exchanges, and even echoing Japan's erroneous "end of war" rhetoric by refusing to acknowledge the end of Japanese colonial rule in Taiwan.
The ultimate aim of the separatist forces on the island is to change the national identity of Taiwan residents. Commemorating Taiwan's restoration from Japanese colonialism serves to tell the world that "Taiwan independence" separatist forces' ploys are unpopular on the island and doomed to failure.
Despite the DPP authorities' evil efforts, the bonds of kinship between compatriots across the Strait are unbreakable. The fact that cross-Strait trade exceeded $300 billion in the first three quarters of this year and Taiwan's investment in the Chinese mainland market increased by 18 percent shows people across the Strait are one family.
Taiwan's restoration to China was the beginning of the advance of integrated cross-Strait development, allowing Taiwan compatriots to share in the glory of national rejuvenation.
Yang Liuchang is chairman of Hong Kong-based China Review Think Tank Foundation.
No one can split Taiwan from motherland
The ridiculous claim that Taiwan has an "undetermined status" is utterly baseless. In accordance with a series of legally binding international documents signed by the Allied powers during and after World War II, Taiwan was restored as an integral part of Chinese territory and the central government resumed effective jurisdiction over it on Oct 25, 1945.
Eighty years have passed since Taiwan's restoration, yet some individuals in the United States persist in recycling the outdated rhetoric of the so-called "undetermined status of Taiwan". Such claims are nothing but absurd.
Taiwan has always been part of Chinese territory. Japan forcibly occupied it following the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), and one of China's key objectives during the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931-45) was to recover Taiwan. This demand was recognized and supported by the Allied powers in the global fight against fascism.
Taiwan's return to China on Oct 25, 1945, was both rightful and inevitable. For the past eight decades, the fact that Taiwan is part of China has been an undeniable historical and political reality.
No one has the right to deny the legality of instruments such as the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender — legally binding documents that stipulate the return of Taiwan to China. Nor can anyone ignore or dismiss the historical and political reality that Taiwan was restored to China in October 1945.
The so-called "undetermined status of Taiwan" is nothing but fallacy. From former US president Harry Truman to current US politicians, no one has the right to violate or deny the World War II-era legal instruments or refute the fact that Taiwan has always been an integral part of China.
Regardless of what certain individuals claim, Taiwan's status as part of China is unalterable and undeniable.
There has never been, and will never be, any room for the "undetermined status of Taiwan" narrative. The narrative is driven by ulterior motives, and such ill-intentioned attempts will never succeed. A handful of US politicians and anti-China forces seek to use this narrative as a "Taiwan card" to hinder China's efforts to achieve national reunification.
But today's China is no longer the weak, impoverished nation of the 1890s when the country was forced to cede territory and pay indemnities to foreign powers. Tempered by the World Anti-Fascist War and decades of rapid growth, China will not allow any force to separate Taiwan from the motherland.
Just as Truman's promotion of the "undetermined status of Taiwan" theory failed to alter the reality of Taiwan's return to China in the past, anti-China forces' attempt today to split Taiwan from the motherland will also fail.
Any attempt by anti-China forces to play the "Taiwan card" by peddling the "undetermined status of Taiwan" fallacy is doomed to failure.
Li Zhenguang is dean of the Institute of Taiwan Studies, Beijing Union University.
US shouldn't play fire on Taiwan question
The previous and incumbent US administrations have both emphasized dealing with other countries "from a position of strength". At its core, this reflects a belief that "might makes right", that whoever has the bigger fist and stronger arm gets to decide the rules.
The current US administration, in particular, pursues an unabashed "America first "strategy, openly measuring others by how many cards they hold, not according to international law or norms. It pays little attention to the United Nations or the broader international community.
Over the years, the world has repeatedly seen the United States overturn, deny or evade its own international commitments. It invokes international law when it serves its interests, and discards it when it does not. Washington hypes up the rules that benefit it but ignores or tramples those that require it to shoulder responsibilities. It has repeatedly "quit international organizations and torn up treaties", promoting the "rules of its own club" as "international rules". It resorts to double standards in the name of law to infringe on other countries' legitimate rights, interferes in their internal affairs, and imposes sanctions or launches military strikes without UN authorization.
This logic is also evident in how the US handles Beijing-related and Taiwan-related issues. The US frequently breaks its promise — pledging not to play the "Taiwan card "or support "Taiwan independence" — and then turns around to do exactly the opposite. Even when the very documents it is a signatory to or those adopted by the UN General Assembly are crystal clear — such as UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 or the Cairo Declaration — the US distorts or challenges them. It twists the plain meaning of the three China-US joint communiques, trying to justify its failure to honor commitments while continuing to use Taiwan as a tool to contain China and meddle in China's internal affairs.
The authority and seriousness of key legal and political documents, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, the three China-US joint communiques, and UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, must be respected. In the three communiques, the US explicitly recognized that Taiwan is an integral part of China. The wording is clear and has been mutually confirmed in both the English and Chinese versions. Thus it cannot be distorted or treated as a linguistic game by any side.
A major power should act like one. Keeping promises and fulfilling obligations are the basic requirements of a responsible country. If the US claims to be a global power, it should demonstrate that with integrity and accountability, not by resorting to outdated power politics. Such tactics cannot halt the Chinese nation's rejuvenation, cannot prevent China's reunification, and cannot change the legal and factual truth that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.
Zhu Zhongbo is director of the Department for World Peace and Security Studies, China Institute of International Studies.
US' own words expose its broken promises
An analysis of the United States' handling of the Taiwan question shows that it has repeatedly violated its own commitments, both in words and in deeds.
In January 1950, the then US president Harry Truman publicly acknowledged that Taiwan had been returned to China following Japan's surrender. In his statement, he cited the 1943 Cairo Declaration, in which the leaders of China, the US and the United Kingdom agreed that Chinese territories seized by Japan, including Taiwan, should be restored to China. Truman made it clear that the US had no intention of acquiring special rights in Taiwan, building military bases there or intervening in China's internal affairs.
Former US secretary of state Dean Acheson, later reiterated the US position, stressing that Taiwan had already been handed back to China in accordance with the terms of Japan's surrender, and that no one, including the US, had ever questioned this legitimacy in the years that followed.
These are the original, unambiguous statements of the US government. Even in the aftermath of the war, Washington incorporated the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and Japan's Instrument of Surrender into its own official compendium of treaties and agreements, recognizing them as legally binding international documents. By doing so, the US effectively confirmed that Taiwan had been legally returned to China.
When China and the US began normalizing relations in the early 1970s, then US president Richard Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger also reaffirmed that there is only one China, and Taiwan is an integral part of China. Nixon made this commitment directly to former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai in 1972, stating that the US would not support any "Taiwan independence movement".
The same principle was enshrined in the Shanghai Communique and later in the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the People's Republic of China and the United States of America when Jimmy Carter was the US president. Both the English and Chinese versions of the documents were jointly confirmed, and under international law, all accepted language versions carry equal authority.
Yet decades later, the US has sought to reinterpret its own words and commitments. It now invokes a so-called "undetermined status of Taiwan", a narrative which it itself rejected in 1950 as a geopolitical tool against China. Such selective amnesia not only undermines the legal and historical basis of US policy but also exposes the US' tendency to weaponize law and history for its strategic convenience.
From Truman and Acheson to Carter, successive US leaders have publicly recognized Taiwan as part of China. Rewriting that history today does not change the facts; it only erodes Washington's credibility. True respect for international law begins not with new declarations, but with honoring one's own words.
Jie Dalei is an associate professor at the School of International Studies, Peking University.
The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.
