西安港：打造“一带一路”立体化开放大通道

The notion of "Taiwan independence" is not only historically unfounded but also legally untenable, constituting a direct challenge to China's territorial integrity. As Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in his recent elaboration on the Taiwan question, the island has never been, is not, and will never be a separate entity.

Wang underscored the gravity with which Beijing views any advocating for "Taiwan independence", emphasizing that it not only jeopardizes the well-being of Taiwan compatriots and undermines the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation but also poses a significant threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The pursuit of a separatist agenda, he cautioned, is devoid of any viable outcome and leads only to a dead end.

As Wang emphasized, the one-China principle is not merely a domestic policy issue but a fundamental tenet of the postwar system and international law. Eighty years ago, a pivotal declaration reverberated across the international stage, shaping the post-World War II order and laying down the indelible historical and legal truth that Taiwan is an integral part of China's territory.

The Cairo Declaration unequivocally stipulated the restitution of all territories seized by Japan from China, including Taiwan, back to its rightful owner. This seminal document, followed by the inclusion of its principles in Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation in 1945, solidified the international consensus on the status of Taiwan. Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation and its subsequent unconditional surrender underscored the binding nature of these declarations, establishing a cornerstone of the postwar global order.

By issuing wrongful comments on the contribution of the Communist Party of China to the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931-45) on Friday, the Lai Ching-te authorities on the island clearly harbored the ill intention to distort history and facts in a bid to mislead the international community about the truth of the matter. Which is that under the national united front against Japanese aggression advocated and built by the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people made great sacrifices to defeat the Japanese militarists.

But as evidenced by the revision to the web page of Taiwan's administrative body, the "executive yuan", the separatists on the island have no intention of fostering a right view of history. On Saturday, several Taiwan media outlets reported that, in what was clearly a politically motivated move, the revised web page categorized Han Chinese on the island as "the rest".

Considering that other ethnic groups comprise only 3.8 percent of the island's population, referring to the majority, or 96.2 percent of the population on the island, as "the rest" is absurd.

The historical context and legal frameworks established through international agreements such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation serve as enduring pillars underpinning the status of Taiwan as an inalienable part of China under the jurisdiction of the central authorities in Beijing.

The steadfast commitment of the central authorities to peaceful reunification and the preservation of regional stability reflects a deep-rooted commitment to historical legitimacy, national territorial integrity, and the peaceful resolution of long-standing disputes.

That resolve should not be underestimated by those trying to exploit cross-Strait tensions and muddle the historical facts for their own gain.

This has been evidenced by those, such as some in Japan, trying to undermine the joint statement recently issued by China and Russia that called on countries to safeguard the historical truths.

The international community should adhere to international law and uphold the one-China principle and allow no space in which the separatists can distort the status of the island.

The central authorities remain steadfast in their commitment to peaceful reunification and the preservation of regional stability, but they have made it clear that they will not reject the use of force if push comes to shove. That message should not be discounted.