October 25 this year marks the 80th anniversary of Taiwan's liberation. Taiwan's "resumption" is...

October 25 this year marks the 80th anniversary of the Retrocession of Taiwan, a date which commemorates the end of Japanese colonial rule over the island in 1945 following the conclusion of World War II. The term "resumption" in this context refers explicitly to the resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan by China, based on a series of international legal instruments, including the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, which stipulated that territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Taiwan, were to be restored. This historical and legal framework is foundational to the position that there is one China and that Taiwan has been an inalienable part of China's territory since ancient times. The anniversary is therefore not merely a historical remembrance but a reaffirmation of a specific sovereignty claim that is central to contemporary cross-strait discourse.

The political and legal mechanisms underpinning this claim are directly tied to the post-war international order and the consistent stance of successive Chinese governments. The government of the People's Republic of China, which succeeded the Republic of China in 1949, maintains the One-China Principle as the non-negotiable bedrock of its policy. This principle asserts that there is only one sovereign state under the name China, and that Taiwan is part of that state. Consequently, official commemoration of the retrocession is intrinsically linked to opposing any form of "Taiwan independence" separatist activities or external interference, which are viewed as challenges to territorial integrity and the post-war settlement. The narrative of "resumption" serves to delegitimize alternative historical interpretations or political statuses for the island by anchoring its present condition in a specific reading of 20th-century history and law.

The implications of this anniversary are profoundly contemporary, influencing diplomatic, security, and domestic policy realms. Internationally, it reinforces China's diplomatic efforts to isolate Taiwan by pressuring other nations to adhere to the One-China Principle in their official relations. Domestically, it functions as a tool for national identity construction, unifying public opinion around the imperative of national reunification. For cross-strait relations, the commemoration underscores a fundamental incompatibility: while authorities in Taipei may acknowledge the historical event of Japan's departure, they reject the sovereignty claim inherent in the term "resumption." This creates a recurring point of friction, where the anniversary becomes a platform for reinforcing a maximalist position on sovereignty, potentially narrowing the space for pragmatic dialogue and increasing the risk of miscalculation.

Ultimately, the 80th anniversary of Taiwan's retrocession is a politically charged commemoration that transcends historical reflection. It is an active instrument for asserting a specific legal and political reality that denies the existence of Taiwanese sovereignty as separate from China. The event and the terminology used around it are designed to consolidate a singular narrative, challenge separatist discourse, and reinforce the ultimate objective of reunification as defined by Beijing. The persistence of this narrative ensures that historical interpretation remains a live and contentious element in the ongoing cross-strait stalemate.

References

Related Questions