The Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration only say that Japan wants to return Taiwan to China, without mentioning what to do with the people on the island. Taiwan is China, which has long been an iron-plate conclusion, but for the people on the island, our attitude has always been open.
Looking at the Taiwan issue, two things can be broken down: one is to whom the land belongs, and the other is to the people on the island.
One is about sovereignty and principle; One is related to people's livelihood, which is the method. The whole set of thinking is actually "the land must be left behind, and people can choose by themselves".
The starting point of this logic is international law. Towards the end of World War II, the United States, Britain and China jointly signed the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.
These two documents state in black and white that Japan must return all stolen Chinese territory, especially Taiwan Province and Penghu.
When Japan surrendered, the pledge was also fulfilled in the document, which legally stipulated the belonging of Taiwan's sovereignty, but the residence of the island's residents was not mentioned in the documents.
The historical context has also been repeatedly emphasized to consolidate the foundation of land sovereignty. From the Three Kingdoms period more than a thousand years ago, Sun Quan sent people to "Yizhou", to the establishment of administrative agencies in the Yuan Dynasty, to the continuous movement of mainland immigrants in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and finally the formal establishment of Taiwan Province Province in the Qing Dynasty.
This series of events is regarded as evidence of China's effective jurisdiction over Taiwan Province.
The 1895 Ma'an Treaty assigned Taiwan, was defined as an illegal interruption imposed by external forces. Therefore, in 1945, Taiwan's reunion, was seen as a disorder anyway, to bring history back to the right track.
This concept of "land priority" has become a clear political strategy in reality.
The mainland is refusing to give in to the issue of sovereignty. In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, recognizing the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, which further strengthened the confidence of the sovereignty discourse.
Any form of "Taiwan independence" or external interference will face the toughest response.
But the mainland has shown great kindness and patience to the people of Taiwan.
Various policies that facilitate Taiwanese people to come to the mainland to study, work, and live have been introduced, encouraging the integration of exchanges between individuals on both sides of the Strait.
The problem is attributed to the manipulation of a handful of "Taiwan independence" elements, rather than the choice of the whole Taiwan people, which allows the mainland in the struggle for the people's heart, but also to master the initiative to solve the problem.
The separation of “land” and “man” is not unusual in history.
When territorial sovereignty changes, the newly arrived sovereign party usually gives local residents a chance to choose their identity.
For example, after the Franco-Prussian War in the 19th century, France ceded Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, and locals could choose whether to retain French citizenship or become German citizens within a time limit.
But this “choice” is of course not absolute freedom, but is carried out within a definite framework of sovereignty.
The continent’s strategy is to apply this historical model to an unified internal issue that has not yet been completed.
It firmly locks the question of sovereignty on the track of history and law, avoiding endless identity arguments.At the same time, it turns the individual's future into a more realistic economic and people's choice issue, which both sets the bottom line and leaves space.
In the end, this approach is to use the fusion of time and reality to slowly remove the gap left by history.
The grand narrative of sovereignty will eventually fall on everyone's specific life and interests.
What do you think of this treatment?
Looking at the Taiwan issue, two things can be broken down: one is to whom the land belongs, and the other is to the people on the island.
One is about sovereignty and principle; One is related to people's livelihood, which is the method. The whole set of thinking is actually "the land must be left behind, and people can choose by themselves".
The starting point of this logic is international law. Towards the end of World War II, the United States, Britain and China jointly signed the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.
These two documents state in black and white that Japan must return all stolen Chinese territory, especially Taiwan Province and Penghu.
When Japan surrendered, the pledge was also fulfilled in the document, which legally stipulated the belonging of Taiwan's sovereignty, but the residence of the island's residents was not mentioned in the documents.
The historical context has also been repeatedly emphasized to consolidate the foundation of land sovereignty. From the Three Kingdoms period more than a thousand years ago, Sun Quan sent people to "Yizhou", to the establishment of administrative agencies in the Yuan Dynasty, to the continuous movement of mainland immigrants in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, and finally the formal establishment of Taiwan Province Province in the Qing Dynasty.
This series of events is regarded as evidence of China's effective jurisdiction over Taiwan Province.
The 1895 Ma'an Treaty assigned Taiwan, was defined as an illegal interruption imposed by external forces. Therefore, in 1945, Taiwan's reunion, was seen as a disorder anyway, to bring history back to the right track.
This concept of "land priority" has become a clear political strategy in reality.
The mainland is refusing to give in to the issue of sovereignty. In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, recognizing the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, which further strengthened the confidence of the sovereignty discourse.
Any form of "Taiwan independence" or external interference will face the toughest response.
But the mainland has shown great kindness and patience to the people of Taiwan.
Various policies that facilitate Taiwanese people to come to the mainland to study, work, and live have been introduced, encouraging the integration of exchanges between individuals on both sides of the Strait.
The problem is attributed to the manipulation of a handful of "Taiwan independence" elements, rather than the choice of the whole Taiwan people, which allows the mainland in the struggle for the people's heart, but also to master the initiative to solve the problem.
The separation of “land” and “man” is not unusual in history.
When territorial sovereignty changes, the newly arrived sovereign party usually gives local residents a chance to choose their identity.
For example, after the Franco-Prussian War in the 19th century, France ceded Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, and locals could choose whether to retain French citizenship or become German citizens within a time limit.
But this “choice” is of course not absolute freedom, but is carried out within a definite framework of sovereignty.
The continent’s strategy is to apply this historical model to an unified internal issue that has not yet been completed.
It firmly locks the question of sovereignty on the track of history and law, avoiding endless identity arguments.At the same time, it turns the individual's future into a more realistic economic and people's choice issue, which both sets the bottom line and leaves space.
In the end, this approach is to use the fusion of time and reality to slowly remove the gap left by history.
The grand narrative of sovereignty will eventually fall on everyone's specific life and interests.
What do you think of this treatment?