Editor's note: On June 22, Lai Ching-te, the Taiwan leader once again revealed the true nature of his political agenda in his so-called first "uniting the country" speech: division, deception, and deliberate provocation. Experts share their views with China Daily on the motives behind Lai's speech and the harmful impact on cross-Strait ties and regional peace. Excerpts follow:

Lai's speech was not a statement of democratic values, nor a sincere appeal to peace—it was a calculated piece of political theater designed to advance a separatist agenda under the guise of populism and "self-determination".

Lai's remarks were filled with distortions of history and blatant lies. He deliberately twisted and fragmented historical facts, attempting to fabricate a so-called "Taiwan identity" that denies the island's deep-rooted connection with the Chinese nation. This is not merely historical revisionism—it is historical vandalism.

Time and again, Lai has tried to erase undeniable facts: that Taiwan has been part of China since ancient times; that its indigenous peoples migrated from the mainland; that Zheng Chenggong reclaimed Taiwan from colonial rule; that the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) established formal governance over the island; and that Taiwan was returned to China after World War II. These are not abstract claims—they are documented truths recognized by both history and international law, including the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation.

Yet Lai disregards them all. In their place, he peddles a distorted narrative where colonial trauma is repackaged as "progress", where kinship with the mainland is portrayed as "infiltration", and where China's rise is twisted into a looming "threat". His version of democracy is nothing more than a mask for ideological manipulation.

What's worse, Lai's rhetoric is not just misleading—it is dangerous. By aggressively pushing for so-called "Taiwan independence", he is dragging Taiwan's 23 million people into the depths of confrontation. His actions threaten to sever cross-Strait ties, undermine regional peace, and destabilize the hard-won progress of the past decades.

He speaks of "maintaining the status quo", yet his every move—from expanding arms purchases to launching political purges and fueling impeachment battles—erodes that very status quo. His "peace" is armed; his "reforms" are purges; his "identity" is built on a house of contradictions.

The greatest flaw in Lai's separatist rhetoric is that it cannot stand up to reason, nor to the will of most Taiwan residents, who seek peace, stability, and prosperity. Lai is not defending democracy—he is holding it hostage. By turning "Taiwan independence" into a political weapon, he is using the island's future as collateral for short-term political gain.

History has shown that those who go against the tide will be swept away by it. Lai's reckless attempt to sever Taiwan from its roots and rewrite its identity will not succeed. The tide of reunification, supported by shared culture, common ancestry, and mutual benefit, cannot be stopped by empty slogans or political stunts.

In the end, Lai's speech was not a call for peace—it was a declaration of confrontation. It exposed not only the logical bankruptcy of "Taiwan independence", but also the moral void at the heart of his political vision. No matter how he tries to disguise it, Lai is leading Taiwan down a dangerous and lonely path—one that ends not in freedom, but in isolation.

 

(Zhu Songling is a professor at the Institute of Taiwan Studies, Beijing Union University.)

 

On June 22, Lai Ching-te once again exposed his hardline separatist agenda. Cloaked in the language of "democracy" and "identity", his speech was, in essence, a high-profile attempt to stoke confrontation across the Taiwan Strait while serving the short-term political needs of his party. Beneath the surface of campaign rhetoric lies a clear motive: to fabricate ideological justification for "Taiwan independence" and to undermine peace and stability in the region.

Lai's speech brazenly denied the historical and legal fact that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China. He not only rejected universally acknowledged history but also attempted to rewrite it by invoking misleading theories such as the so-called "Austronesian origins" of Taiwan. What he failed to mention is that modern archaeological, ethnological, and linguistic research all point to the mainland as the origin of Austronesian-speaking peoples. The presence of these groups in Taiwan is itself a product of historical migration and exchange across the Strait—solid evidence that Taiwan has always been part of China.

By ignoring the undeniable ties — political, cultural, and demographic — between the island and the mainland, Lai is not preserving history. He is weaponizing a false narrative to serve a separatist agenda.

Lai also manipulated Taiwan's anti-colonial past, referencing resistance against Japanese imperial rule. Yet he conveniently omits that such resistance was a shared struggle by Chinese people across both sides of the Strait. Turning patriotic memory into a tool for separatist propaganda is not only a distortion — it is a betrayal of the very spirit of those who fought for China's dignity and unity.

Lai's rhetoric further collapsed when he twisted international law to suit his agenda. He deliberately misrepresented UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, which clearly confirms that there is only one China and that the People's Republic of China is its sole legal representative at the UN. There is no room for "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan".

Moreover, binding legal documents such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation — agreed upon by the Allied powers — confirmed that Taiwan, once occupied by Japan, was to be returned to China. These documents remain part of the legal basis for the postwar international order. Japan's surrender and China's recovery of Taiwan in 1945 sealed this legal and historical reality.

Even the UN Secretariat's Office of Legal Affairs has stated clearly that Taiwan as a province of China with no separate status. In practice, the UN refers to Taiwan as "Taiwan, Province of China".

Lai's attempt to cherry-pick legal interpretations while ignoring these facts only further weakens his argument—and exposes its illegitimacy.

Perhaps the most dangerous element of Lai's speech is his reliance on foreign backing, particularly from the United States. This tactic of "seeking independence by leaning on external forces" has long been a recipe for instability. It serves neither Taiwan's interests nor the region's peace.

US policymakers have made clear — through both words and actions — that Taiwan is often seen as a bargaining chip, not a true partner. Recent developments such as the forced relocation of TSMC's advanced chip manufacturing to the US — turning it from "Taiwan semiconductor" into "American semiconductor"— illustrate how strategic dependence can become strategic vulnerability.

When the geopolitical costs rise, Taiwan may be abandoned just as quickly as it is embraced. History has taught us this painful lesson more than once.

In sum, Lai's speech was not a vision for peace or democracy. It was a declaration of division—an ideological cocktail of historical denial, legal distortion, and foreign dependence. If left unchecked, such rhetoric risks pushing Taiwan further into isolation and conflict.

Ultimately, the future of Taiwan lies not in confrontation, but in cooperation and dialogue. Lai's attempt to hijack the island's destiny for partisan gain will not be remembered as a democratic triumph — but as a dangerous detour from peace.

History will judge him — and so will the people on both sides of the Strait.

 

(Zhong Houtao is an associate professor at the School of National Security, University of International Relations.)

 

Lai's so-called first lecture of the "uniting the country" speeches, discussed the concept of "nation" and promoting "Taiwan independence" thinking. Once again, he used fallacies to confuse the public in Taiwan, stirring up cross-Strait discourse. This is another "independence-seeking" performance following his "mergers theory" speech in May this year, representing a new tactic of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities to lean on external forces for "independence", aiming to divert attention from the growing voices to require him to step down and maximize party interests.

Since Lai Ching-te's election as a regional leader, he has been pushing for "de-Sinicization" on one hand, while constantly using a sense of "responsibility" ingrained in the Chinese national spirit to manipulate public opinion in Taiwan. In his speech, he emphasized the phrase "the rise and fall of a nation concerns every individual", urging the Taiwan people to guard "national sovereignty" and "democratic freedom" based on historical lessons. His inconsistent words and actions are perplexing.

Taiwan has been deeply influenced by Chinese culture, and the spirit of Chinese culture is a national gene deeply rooted in the hearts of the Taiwan people, which cannot be erased by the political maneuvers of the DPP. The DPP has forgotten its roots, attempting to diminish the "Chinese consciousness" or even the "Chinese identity" of the younger generation through "de-Sinicization" efforts, ultimately becoming the culprits in Taiwan's history.

Taiwan has its own history, but historically, Taiwan has never been a separate country. It is absurd that the DPP considers the Netherlands' colonization of Tainan in 1624 as the "founding" of Taiwan, viewing colonial history as the "beginning of Taiwan's globalization". From the perspective of any nation's history, no people would consider being enslaved by others as the beginning of their own history or as a driver of social progress. The colonizers from the Netherlands and Japanese aggressors were invaders of the land of Taiwan, not its so-called pioneers and builders.

The role played by the colonizers from the Netherlands who arrived in Taiwan from the late Ming Dynasty was that of global pirates during Europe's expansion period, representing barbaric visitors in Taiwan's history, rather than contributors to Taiwan's development. Japan's 50-year occupation of Taiwan was the darkest period in Taiwan's history. The DPP disregards facts, creating a narrative of "Taiwanese localization" and "Taiwanese subjectivity", glorifying colonial aggression, with the aim of cutting ties with the mainstream of Chinese cultural history and imagining Taiwan's development over the centuries as a history of "self-independence". One may wonder, will the DPP's "national identity" be condemned to the pillar of historical shame?

The unique historical circumstances have shaped today's Taiwan, but Taiwan's prosperity has always been closely linked to the rapid development of the motherland. Over decades of mutual development across the Strait, both sides have progressed together, establishing the important position of the Chinese nation internationally. Today, driven by its own interests, the DPP disregards the public good, portraying the mainland as an "external hostile force" and intimidating the Taiwan residents with the "five threats" and "17 response strategies", disrupting society and creating a "green terror". Such actions are not in line with the will of the people. In the history of Taiwan's "democracy", the DPP will eventually leave an eternal mark of shame.

As a key figure in the "Taiwan independence" secessionist movement, Lai Ching-te's desire for independence remains strong. By utilizing the international organization of the Rotary International to spread fallacies about "nation", he will cause further harm to the already strained cross-Strait relations. By using so-called "national unity" as a disguise to deceive more Taiwan residents' identities and emotions, within just a year of taking office, Lai has brought cross-Strait relations to a freezing point not seen in decades.

If Taiwan residents allow Lai to persist with his political maneuvers, those individuals in Taiwan who desire peaceful reunification may eventually be unjustly branded as "traitors to the country" by the Lai authorities. It is high time for the island's residents who wish to avoid being drawn into conflict to stand up against Lai's perilous actions.

 

(Yu Laiming is the director of the Institute of Taiwan Studies, Wuhan University.)

 

When Lai Ching-te still dreams of advancing his political agenda by clinging to Washington, the latter is under fire from all sides. From a spiraling immigration crisis marked by Los Angeles riots, Democratic calls for presidential impeachment to Middle East turmoil, transatlantic rifts over Russia-Ukraine conflict, and back-and-forth tariffs, these crises are all giving the United States administration a real headache.

Against this backdrop, Lai's series of statements seeking to bolster the island's position by leveraging US support comes across as tactless and wishful thinking.

Lai's first of his planned ten speeches on "unity" are just the old wine in new bottles, which adopts same tricks of distorting the history and peddling "Taiwan independence" narrative by relying on its foreign patrons. However, in reality, Washington's interest lies primarily in containing Beijing's development, therefore the island is only a pawn offering some economic profits. Given the "art of the deal" approach of the US president and the country's strategic contraction, it is challenging for Washington to engage in direct conflict with Beijing for the sake of Taipei, especially considering the increasing capabilities of the People's Liberation Army.

The US journal Foreign Affairs recently called for making preparations for potential unification across the Taiwan Strait, advocating a strategic decoupling of the island from Washington in both military and economic terms. Some Pentagon officials even stated bluntly that daily life for US people would remain largely unaffected even if they lost the pawn.

The US' current strategic distress is inextricably linked to the decline of its global hegemony. Regarding the Taiwan question, Washington finds itself trapped in a dilemma — unable to bear the costs of direct confrontation with Beijing, yet unwilling to relinquish the "Taiwan card". This contradictory mindset has plunged the Lai authorities into a quagmire of gambling doomed to failure.

 

(Zhang Guoqing is an associate researcher at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.)