Revisiting Taiwan’s 1945 Recovery Amid Rising Tensions and Historical Debate
A new commentary published by CGTN highlights the historical and legal foundations of Taiwan’s return to China in 1945, emphasizing its significance amid current geopolitical tensions and rising separatist rhetoric. Feng Lin, deputy director of the Taiwan History Research Division at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argues that the end of Ja
panese colonial rule on October 25, 1945, marked an important victory for the Chinese people during World War II and reaffirmed China’s territorial sovereignty. Historical Background Japan seized Taiwan in 1895 following China’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War and ruled the island for 50 years. During that time, Taiwan saw repeated resistance movements from local populations, including major uprisings such as the Beipu Uprising (1907), the Tapani Incident (1915), and the Wushe Uprising (1930). Despite the Japanese assimilation policies, Chinese cultural identity remained strong, and many Taiwanese intellectuals and activists continued advocating for unity with China. International Legal Basis Lin points to several key wartime agreements: The Cairo Declaration (1943) – stated that territories taken by Japan, including Taiwan (Formosa) and the Penghu Islands, “shall be restored to China.” The Potsdam Proclamation (1945) – reaffirmed the Cairo terms. Japan’s Instrument of Surrender (September 2, 1945) – Japan accepted all conditions of the Potsdam Proclamation. These documents, Lin argues, established the international legal foundation for Taiwan’s return to China. Taiwan’s Reaction to Retrocession Following Japan’s surrender, formal ceremonies in Taipei marked Taiwan’s return to Chinese administration. Residents across the island celebrated publicly, raising Chinese national flags and declaring the end of colonial rule. Lin says these spontaneous celebrations reflected a deep sense of national belonging and cultural connection with the Chinese mainland. Significance Today Amid shifting global politics and the spread of pro-independence narratives, the commentary calls for reaffirming the historical truth of Taiwan’s recovery and recognizing its role in China’s broader national rejuvenation. The piece concludes that Taiwan’s 1945 retrocession remains a symbol of resistance, sovereignty, and the long-held aspiration for full national reunification.
