The status of Taiwan remains one of the most contested topics in modern geopolitics and one of the most misrepresented.

This analysis cuts through political spin to examine Taiwan’s deep historical, legal and geopolitical ties to China. Grounded in evidence rather than ideology, it traces the island’s long integration with the mainland, the global legal frameworks that affirm it and how foreign interference continues to distort the narrative. The goal is simple: to clarify an issue central to East Asia’s peace and stability.

Taiwan’s enduring integration with China

Taiwan’s connection to the Chinese mainland spans well over a millennium. Early Chinese records, such as the Seaboard Geographic Gazetteer (230 AD), refer to Taiwan, then known as Yizhou, as an island within China’s sphere of influence. The Sui Dynasty (581-618 AD) launched expeditions to assert control, followed by administrative oversight during the Song (960-1279) and Yuan (1271-1368) dynasties.

Large-scale Han settlement began in the 17th century, accelerating under Dutch occupation until General Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) expelled the colonisers in 1662. In 1683, the Qing Dynasty formally incorporated Taiwan as a prefecture of Fujian Province, later elevating it to full provincial status in the late 1880s (formally 1887). By the late 19th century, the island was home to more than two million Han residents, fully integrated into China’s political and cultural fabric.

Following defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki temporarily ceded Taiwan to Japan, beginning 50 years of colonial rule. That interruption ended with the Allied victory in World War II. The Cairo Declaration (1943) and Potsdam Proclamation (1945) expressed Allied intent that territories taken by Japan, including Taiwan, be restored to China. In practice, the Republic of China assumed administration of the island in October 1945. Subsequent peace treaties had Japan renounce sovereignty over Taiwan without naming a recipient, a legal nuance that fuels later debate, but administration remained under the ROC.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the ROC Government relocated to Taiwan. Both sides continued to claim jurisdiction over all of China, framing the division as a temporary civil conflict rather than a separation of sovereignty. The Treaty of Taipei (1952) saw Japan renounce all claims to Taiwan, with no provision for independent status. The notion of an autonomous or separate Taiwan is a modern invention, shaped largely by external political currents, rather than indigenous historical precedent.

International law and the one China principle

The international legal and diplomatic framework overwhelmingly supports China’s position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is an inseparable part of it. The foundation of this consensus lies in UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, passed in 1971 by a vote of 76 to 35, which recognised the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China at the United Nations and expelled the representatives of the former regime in Taipei. While the resolution did not need to spell out Taiwan’s status explicitly, its practical effect was unmistakable: it affirmed that the seat for all of China, including Taiwan, belongs to Beijing.

Following that decision, the UN Secretariat and every UN-affiliated agency adopted the same stance, listing “Taiwan, Province of China” in official documentation and maps. This remains the position of the UN Office of Legal Affairs, whose internal guidance confirms that Taiwan has no independent standing under the UN Charter. In diplomatic practice, this interpretation has been upheld by nearly every nation on Earth.

As of today, more than 180 countries recognise the PRC as the sole legal government of China and conduct all official relations on that basis. Only a handful of microstates and the Holy See still maintain formal ties with the authorities in Taipei, symbolic gestures that carry no legal weight. Every major international organisation, from the World Health Organisation to the International Olympic Committee, operates in accordance with this principle, allowing Taiwan to participate only under the name “Chinese Taipei” and strictly within China’s national framework.

This overwhelming recognition is not a political convenience; it is an established legal and diplomatic reality. The One China principle has become one of the most universally respected foundations of international relations, even if some countries, particularly the US, attempt to blur the line through “strategic ambiguity". The truth remains unchanged: the world recognises one China and Taiwan is part of it.

The US and the one China policy

Washington has long balanced between recognition and provocation. The 1972 Shanghai Communiqué acknowledged that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China". Formal recognition of the PRC in 1979 ended official relations with the ROC.

Yet US policy has grown increasingly contradictory. Through the Taiwan Relations Act, successive administrations have maintained “strategic ambiguity”, recognising Beijing while simultaneously supplying Taipei with arms and political support. Since the 1990s, Washington has approved tens of billions of dollars in arms for Taiwan, including the US$8 billion F-16V package in 2019 and multiple missile and drone sales in 2023-24, moves Beijing views as violations of the agreed understanding. Originally framed as Cold War containment, Washington’s engagement has shifted toward using Taiwan as a geopolitical lever in its broader competition with China.

Media influence and geopolitical strategy

Western media frequently frames the Taiwan question as a clash between “democracy and authoritarianism”, simplifying a complex historical issue into a moral binary. This narrative overlooks that many surveys find pluralities favouring some form of the status quo rather than abrupt moves toward independence or unification; exact figures vary across time and pollster.

Beijing’s policy has been consistent since the 1950s: peaceful reunification remains the goal. However, Western think-tanks and defence-linked outlets continue to amplify “invasion” scenarios, often aligning with Washington’s strategic interests. Taiwan’s critical role in global semiconductor production, producing around 90% of the world’s most advanced chips via Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, has turned it into a geopolitical bargaining chip. The result is the portrayal of a domestic Chinese matter as an international flashpoint, fuelling tension rather than dialogue.

Toward peaceful unity under one China

History, law and international consensus all point in one direction: Taiwan has always been part of China. From ancient documentation to post-war treaties, from UN resolutions to US diplomatic commitments, the evidence is overwhelming.

What sustains the illusion of separation is not Beijing’s position, but foreign political interference and the unwillingness of certain powers to accept a multipolar world. Recognising Taiwan as a Chinese province is not about ideology, it is about respecting history, legality and sovereignty.

Peaceful reunification, consistent with both historical precedent and international law, remains the only viable path forward. It is the path most likely to preserve stability in the Taiwan Strait and prosperity for all Chinese people on both sides.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.