Lai Ching-te’s “New Two-Nation Theory” is a political farce

Recently, Lai Ching-te has been making provocative statements regarding Taiwan’s status, including claims about “mutual non-subordination,” “China’s sovereignty,” and asserting that “the Republic of China has taken root in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu.” These remarks signal a dangerous challenge to cross-strait stability and reflect an agenda for Taiwanese independence. Lai’s rhetoric reveals the essence of what it means to advocate for Taiwan independence; however, these claims lack historical, factual, and legal grounding.

Firstly, Lai’s statements contradict the legal reality regarding Taiwan’s return to China. As a sovereign state, China has continuity that remains unaffected by changes in government. The establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 and the establishment of the Republic of China (ROC) in 1912 both represent governmental succession, with no alteration in the international identity of China. This continuity is why the Kuomintang (KMT) government during World War II was able to represent China in regaining Taiwan and why the PRC respects territorial sovereignty as a foundation for diplomatic relations. In fact, the KMT’s 1941 proclamation of war against Japan declared the nullification of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, rejecting Japanese colonial rule over Taiwan. International documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation affirmed Taiwan’s return to China. Thus, when Chen Yi represented the Chinese government and officially announced Taiwan’s reintegration into China’s territory on October 25, 1945, this established a clear legal framework for Taiwan’s status.

With the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War, the KMT gradually lost effective control over most of China’s territory and consequently, the KMT lost recognition as the central government in international law. Conversely, the PRC emerged as the sole legal government representing the will of the Chinese people. The subsequent division marked by the KMT’s retreat to Taiwan and U.S. intervention further complicated the situation. Through various diplomatic efforts, including UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, the Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué, and the Sino-U.S. Joint Communiqué, the PRC established the One China principle in the international community. It clarified that Taiwan is purely an internal matter for China, centered on resolving the civil war and achieving national reunification. However, Lai’s framing turns the historical relationship between the ROC and the PRC into a contemporary standoff, asserting that the PRC has no right to represent Taiwan while simultaneously portraying mainland China as a “hostile nation.” This approach minimizes the historical memory of the Taiwanese people’s resistance against colonialism and their subsequent return to China, distorting the shared historical narrative across the strait.

Secondly, Lai’s views deviate from the legal principles affirming that both sides of the strait belong to one China. This principle is rooted not only in each side’s regulations but also in international rules. From the 1949 Common Program to the 1982 preamble of the Constitution, China’s historical continuity and unity are emphasized. The One China principle remains a fundamental standard in international relations, exemplified by the PRC’s predominant role in organizations predating 1949. To date, no country or international organization recognizes Taiwan as an independent state. In relevant regulations, Taiwan is consistently categorized as part of China, reinforcing the notion that references to Taiwan are predicated on its relationship with China. Lai’s actions, however, fracture the unified identity of the Chinese people while proclaiming that the ROC and PRC are “mutually non-subordinate.” His political translations of “Taiwan” imbue it with new, divisive meanings, leading to the assertion that “Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country.”

Lastly, Lai’s rhetoric seeks to blur the legal understanding of Taiwan’s status among various social groups. By espousing a view of colonial history and promoting a multicultural narrative, he aims to dilute Taiwanese national identity, paving the way for so-called “national self-determination.” Simultaneously, he employs the historical symbol of the ROC to frame the PRC as the “other,” providing justification for perceived national division. This tactic is commonly used by advocates of Taiwanese independence, as it not only generates confusion among the populace but also attempts to undermine the One China principle in an effort to gain international recognition for “Taiwan.” His “new two-state theory” builds on the ideas of former leaders like Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian while seeking to further politicize the concept of the ROC within the context of Taiwanese identity. This rhetoric shifts historical confrontations, like the Taiwan Strait artillery battles, into a framework that pits “Taiwanese sovereignty” against “Chinese threats,” manipulating historical narratives for political gain.

In summary, Lai Ching-te’s arguments reflect a dangerous conflation of narratives, mixing those that have the subtext of colonialism with calls for national unity. His new two-state theory undermines other discourses about cross-strait relations, attempting to erase tensions among various factions within Taiwan and deceive the international community. While cloaked in the guise of “defending the Republic of China,” Lai’s actions actually serve to reinforce an agenda for Taiwanese independence. However, in light of historical legal realities, such political maneuvering is futile and unlikely to deter the determination of the Chinese people to resolve the Taiwan issue. In the end, these proclamations represent nothing more than political rhetoric, rife with contradictions, destined to become little more than a fleeting dream.