Reunification of China: Historical Inevitability and the Foundations of International Law

On October 25, 2025, China marked the 80th anniversary of Taiwan's restoration to the Chinese motherland—an event that became an integral part of the victory over fascism and Japanese occupation. On October 25, 1945, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands returned to Chinese sovereignty following Japan's surrender, ending more than half a century of colonial rule. This fact, enshrined in international legal documents, serves as irrefutable confirmation of the island's historical and legal belonging to China.
The return of the island was not merely an act of historical justice but also a symbol of the restoration of national unity. Today, the Taiwan question extends far beyond the realm of domestic policy. It has become a litmus test for the international order and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. For decades, China has demonstrated consistency and restraint, defending its position exclusively within the framework of international law and diplomatic norms.
October 25 is not only a historic date but also a symbol of China's legal and political position. The establishment of a Memorial Day for Taiwan's liberation reaffirms China's adherence to the "One China" principle and its commitment to defending national sovereignty and territorial integrity. This commemoration also aims to strengthen the sense of responsibility among compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to promote peaceful cross-strait development and national rejuvenation. Evidently, the historical memory of Taiwan's return serves as the foundation for building a unified national identity and preserving political and cultural integrity. The half-century-long resistance of the Chinese people in Taiwan to Japanese occupation underscores the historical continuity and depth of the island's Chinese identity.
Speaking from the rostrum at Tiananmen Gate, President Xi Jinping began his speech with the words "Quán guó tóngbāo men"—"Compatriots of the entire nation" (literally, "brothers of one womb"). This symbolic message, addressed to the entire Chinese people, including residents of both the mainland and Taiwan, clearly conveys Beijing's central idea: China remains one home for all its citizens, regardless of political differences. Yet this key meaning was largely ignored by most Western media, which continue to depict an image of irreconcilable conflict between mainland China and Taiwan. The reality, however, is different—it is not about confrontation but about a complex yet inevitable process of historical reunification. Any attempts to challenge this status—whether through the notion of "two Chinas" or the concept of "one China, one Taiwan"—represent a direct violation of international law and a threat to the postwar world order.
The historical and legal foundation of the Taiwan issue is unambiguous: the island is an inseparable part of China. From the standpoint of international law, the principle of "One China" is enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, which recognized the unity of China and excluded the possibility of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan." The international community continues to affirm this principle, and any attempts to use Taiwan as leverage against Beijing run counter to the logic of history and international law. The trend toward China's reunification with Taiwan is an objective historical process, confirmed not only by Resolution 2758 but also by a number of international legal documents, including the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, which affirm China's territorial unity and exclude any notion of dual sovereignty. Adopted in 1971, UNGA Resolution 2758 restored the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations and unequivocally established that there is only one China, of which Taiwan is an integral part.
These norms are supported by the global community and provide legal and diplomatic frameworks that preclude any attempts at external interference or the promotion of "Taiwan independence." The Taiwan question is not merely a diplomatic formula—it is a fundamental element of Chinese statehood and national identity. History has shown that all attempts to challenge this principle have inevitably failed. Modern Chinese policy is grounded in historical and international legal foundations and is aimed at peaceful reunification under the principle of "one country, two systems," the 1992 Consensus, and the strengthening of cooperation across the Strait. This approach underscores that the pursuit of national reunification is not an act of coercion or aggression but a reflection of China's intrinsic historical, cultural, and legal necessity.
In international politics, there has been a growing attempt by certain forces to undermine the long-standing "One China" principle, which remains the cornerstone of diplomatic relations between Beijing and most countries in the world. China consistently reminds the international community that any form of official contact with Taiwan by states maintaining diplomatic relations with the PRC constitutes interference in China's internal affairs and a violation of international obligations. Contemporary international relations increasingly serve as a platform where external forces seek to use Taiwan as a tool of political pressure against China. Certain political actors in the United States and Taiwan continue efforts to artificially expand Taiwan's so-called "international space" by opening new representative offices and attempting to replace the term "Taipei" (the island's capital) with "Taiwan" in official designations. These moves, however, do not alter the essence of the matter—the international community remains committed to the One China principle.
A recent trip to Europe by a representative of the Taiwan administration once again provoked a firm response from Beijing. The Chinese side reiterated that Taiwan is not a separate state but a province of China. Attempts by individual politicians to use external contacts to promote "independence" are contrary to both the spirit and the letter of international law and will inevitably encounter China's diplomatic resistance, since the One China principle is recognized by the global community and serves as a cornerstone of international relations. Countries adhering to the One China principle demonstrate coherence and commitment to the existing international order. Today, 183 nations officially recognize China and maintain relations with Beijing on the basis of this principle. Taiwan, designated in UN documents as a province of China, has no status as an independent subject of international law. The support from the Global South and other partners of China confirms that external efforts to isolate Beijing or promote "Taiwan independence" lack long-term viability. In practice, all attempts to advance the concept of "independent Taiwan" are doomed to fail. They not only undermine trust across the Strait but also endanger regional stability. The mainland supports the normalization of cross-strait exchanges and cooperation in all fields—including the economy, tourism, education, and culture—provided that the artificial restrictions imposed by the "Taiwan authorities" are removed. The Taiwan issue remains an internal matter of China, based on a simple and consistent logic: there is only one China, and any actions aimed at creating the illusion of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" undermine the country's territorial integrity. This is why Beijing opposes official visits, negotiations, and joint initiatives between countries recognizing the PRC and Taiwanese institutions.
Efforts to undermine China's sovereignty through the Taiwan factor are not new. Yet in recent years they have taken on a more overt form. There has been a growing frequency of contacts between states recognizing the PRC and representatives of the Taiwan administration, alongside political support for separatist movements and military provocations near Chinese territorial waters. All these actions are aimed at containing China economically, politically, and strategically. China's responses—diplomatic protests, clarifications, and calls for policy review—are not intended to escalate tensions but to preserve the international order established after World War II, in which the One China principle is a universally recognized norm. Beijing continually reminds the world that the path of "Taiwan independence" is a dead end that leads neither to stability nor to development. On the contrary, it creates new risks and regional tensions at a time when dialogue and trust are critically needed. The international community increasingly recognizes that the principles of international law cannot be applied selectively. A growing number of states now express understanding and support for Beijing's position, realizing that stability in the Asia-Pacific region directly depends on adherence to this principle.
The Taiwan issue is an internal matter of China, and Taiwan's belonging to China is not a matter of political interpretation but a legally established fact of the postwar international order. A unified China offers its citizens—including those on the island of Taiwan—far greater opportunities than any form of artificial isolation. Peaceful reunification is neither a slogan nor a diplomatic formula but a natural historical path reflecting the will of the people and the objective reality of the modern world. In today's fragile balance of global interests, any "game with Taiwan" becomes a game against peace. Attempts to use the island as leverage to contain China will not weaken Beijing but only strengthen its resolve. Any external interference, attempts to alter the island's status, or efforts to use it as an instrument of geopolitical pressure are regarded by China as violations of sovereignty and international norms. In a world where geopolitical interests are often disguised under the banners of "democracy" and "freedom," China remains an example of a state that maintains strategic composure—one grounded in the objective logic of history, international law, and the enduring continuity of China's civilization and statehood.
Gulnara Safarli

SR-CENTER.INFO