Editor's note: Zheng Yuli, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Taiwan Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

In his recently launched speech series, Lai Ching-te, leader of China's Taiwan region, has been peddling the notion that Taiwan meets the so-called four criteria for statehood, and has gone so far as to proclaim that "the two sides of the Taiwan Straits are not subordinate to each other." His aim is clear: fabricating a new version of the "two-state theory" by twisting legal and academic concepts in an attempt to assert Taiwan's status as an "independent country."

But in fact, Lai's statements are nothing short of a "Taiwan independence" manifesto, inciting confrontation across the Straits and cobbling together a jumble of flawed arguments to justify "Taiwan independence." They reveal not only his ignorance of the legal and theoretical foundations of cross-Straits relations but also an attempt to escape the political reality facing Taiwan.

Misreading and misapplying the "four elements of statehood"

Lai asserted that "Taiwan has a population, a defined territory, a government and sovereignty, and thus qualifies as a country." However, this argument is riddled with logical fallacies and conceptual distortions. The so-called four elements are generally traced to the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed by a group of Latin American countries. This convention has no universal binding authority.

More importantly, the "four elements" it lists are merely basic prerequisites; they are not, by themselves, sufficient for the establishment of a state. Even within this framework, Taiwan falls short. On the question of territory, the areas under the Taiwan-administered Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu islands – are an inalienable part of China. The current cross-Straits political confrontation is a legacy of the unresolved Chinese civil war and does not alter the fundamental fact that these regions belong to China. Taiwan's administration of these areas does not equate to legitimate territorial sovereignty.

As for population, the 23 million residents of Taiwan are not a separate national community but part of the broader Chinese nation. In fact, Taiwan's own "constitutional framework" echoes this principle. The population on both sides of the Taiwan Straits together form the entirety of the Chinese people. Regarding government and sovereignty, "Taiwan's only official designation is the Taiwan Province of China." The authorities in Taiwan exercise only administrative functions, not sovereign jurisdiction.

Lai deliberately ignored the core tenets of international law, distorted the meaning of the "four elements of statehood," and misused them to construct a narrative of Taiwan as a sovereign state. Such arguments not only undermine the legal, historical and factual foundations of cross-Straits relations, but also expose his ignorance and perhaps arrogance toward international legal norms.

Fabricating legitimacy for a "new two-state theory" by misrepresenting and hijacking public opinion

Lai claimed that "85 percent of people surveyed believe Taiwan's future should be determined by its 23 million people," and used this to assert that the two sides of the Taiwan Straits "are not subordinate to each other." His intention is clear: to construct a narrative of legitimacy for a "new two-state theory." But this assertion is not only factually unfounded but also represents a malicious hijacking of public opinion and a serious misreading of the principle of national self-determination.

Lai's so-called public support is both misleading and contrived. Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power, it has manipulated public opinion on the island through a mix of information control, emotional incitement, intimidation and constant propagation of a so-called mainland threat. This manufactured atmosphere of fear and confrontation has led to a "false consensus" and "fabricated polling outcomes."

Furthermore, Lai's election victory was not a landslide endorsement, but the result of a fragmented opposition. Nearly 60 percent of voters cast their ballots against him, a clear sign that he lacks a true majority mandate. He cannot claim to speak on behalf of all Taiwan people. Taiwan's future is not a matter for the 23 million residents alone to decide, but must be determined by the 1.4 billion people of China, who include those living in Taiwan. Even the public opinion poll cited by Lai shows that only 19.9 percent of respondents support "maintaining the status quo as a path to eventual independence," and a mere 5.7 percent favor "immediate independence."

Second, "democracy" and "public opinion" can never serve as legal justification for separatist actions. The United Nations Charter, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, all clearly state that the right to national self-determination applies only to colonial or non-self-governing territories. This principle "shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states."

Taiwan has been part of China since ancient times; thus, the principle of self-determination does not apply. Lai deliberately misconstrued international legal principles and forcefully co-opted public opinion in an attempt to justify separatism. This not only constitutes a flagrant challenge to the postwar international order, but also represents a reckless trampling of the real sentiments of people on the island.

Lai's misuse of history, culture and sovereignty concepts to justify "Taiwan Independence"

Lai argued that Taiwan's indigenous peoples, Austronesian cultural roots and its alleged history of "never having been ruled by China" prove that Taiwan is a "sovereign and independent state." But this line of reasoning is riddled with confused logic, factual distortion and outright absurdity. It is nothing more than a haphazard patchwork of arguments concocted to serve his separatist agenda.

From a scholarly perspective, culture and sovereignty belong to entirely different domains and cannot be used as evidence to support one another. Taiwan's indigenous peoples and Austronesian linguistic heritage fall within the realm of anthropology and cannot serve as the basis for establishing statehood. "History and culture" are fluid social phenomena, while "sovereignty" is a rigid political and legal concept. Lai's conflation of the two reveals not only conceptual confusion but also the intellectual fragility of his "Taiwan independence" discourse.

Moreover, historical facts contradict his narrative. Taiwan has been part of China since ancient times, with documented records of Chinese activity on the island dating back to the Three Kingdoms, Sui and Song dynasties. In 1662, Zheng Chenggong expelled Dutch colonists and reclaimed Taiwan for China. In 1945, following Japan's defeat in World War II, Taiwan was restored to Chinese sovereignty.

And in 1971, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758 by an overwhelming majority, restoring the lawful seat of the People's Republic of China and reaffirming that Taiwan is part of China. These events are clear milestones that affirm Taiwan's status as a part of China. Cross-Straits historical and cultural connections further underscore this point. Taiwan's indigenous peoples and Austronesian roots trace back to the southeastern coast of the Chinese mainland.

As Chinese President Xi Jinping once said, "The unity of Chinese civilization has seen its various ethnic cultures coming together to create a cohesive whole," and "it firmly underscores the notion that national unity always remains at the core of national interests." By deliberately distorting historical facts, conflating academic concepts and misrepresenting legal principles, Lai seeks to construct an ideological justification for separatism that simply does not hold up to scrutiny. His fallacious "Taiwan independence" discourse is destined to end up on the ash heap of history.

The distorted framing of identity and the political maneuvering behind "de-Sinicization"

Lai argued that Taiwan's "ethnic diversity" forms the basis of a unique "Taiwanese identity," and that all who live on the island are "masters of Taiwan." In essence, this is a political maneuver aimed at cloaking a separatist agenda in the rhetoric of cultural inclusiveness, attempting to distort the meaning of "Taiwanese identity" and turn it into a vessel for "Taiwan independence."

By presenting identity as rooted solely in local diversity, Lai seeks to strip it of its historical and cultural ties to China. In truth, identity is a multifaceted concept that includes regional, cultural, ethnic and national dimensions. These layers do not inherently conflict with one another.

For most people in Taiwan, regional identity reflects a natural attachment to their homeland. The vast majority of Taiwan residents trace their ancestry to migrants from Fujian and Guangdong provinces. The island's languages, folk beliefs, religious practices and festivals all derive from Chinese cultural traditions. This shared heritage makes it clear that the "Taiwanese identity" and "Chinese identity" are of the same origin.

Lai, however, sought to sever that connection by redefining "Taiwanese identity" narrowly to refer only to those living in the geographic space of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu islands. He then tried to elevate this regional identity into a national identity separate from, and in opposition to, China. This is a calculated political reinterpretation of identity, designed to fabricate legitimacy for Taiwan's "statehood." It is a misrepresentation of public sentiment and an intentional rewriting of identity to serve separatist aims.

The fundamental fact that "Taiwan is part of China" has never changed. The core of Chinese identity among the people of Taiwan lies in the recognition of "one China." Any attempt to hijack that identity by packaging it in a new form to promote "Taiwan independence" is, in effect, a betrayal of its essence. Such efforts are bound to fail.

Overstepping legal boundaries by illegitimately fabricating a pro-independence resolution

Lai has repeatedly cited the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" as a foundational document for "Taiwan independence," even labeling it as a document that defines the "status quo." This claim is not only legally groundless, but also exposes Lai's blatant disregard for the rule of law and procedural legitimacy. It is yet another example of selectively piecing together political rhetoric and flimsy legal rationale in an attempt to manufacture a false sense of justification.

Fundamentally, political party documents are internal expressions of partisan consensus. The "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" is merely a DPP party declaration. It has never been reviewed, passed or endorsed by Taiwan legislative body or executive body, and even more importantly, it in no way represents the collective will of the 1.4 billion Chinese people. In fact, it doesn't even possess binding force within Taiwan's own local administrative framework.

Lai's use of this resolution as a justification for redefining Taiwan's political identity is a clear case of overstepping the boundaries of law and placing separatist ideology above legal procedure and public will. Furthermore, as Taiwan is part of China, the authorities on the island have no right to unilaterally formulate documents that address questions of sovereignty. The so-called Resolution on Taiwan's Future is therefore illegal. No matter how Lai tries to dress up or repackage separatist arguments, their essence remains unchanged: They are an attack on China's sovereignty. Such actions will inevitably be opposed by the overwhelming majority of the international community.

Shifting blame and reversing cause and effect on cross-Straits tensions

Lai labels the mainland as a "hostile external force," sharply increasing military spending, purchasing arms from the United States and touting "indigenous defense" as a path to peace. At its core, this logic turns cause and effect upside down and confuses right with wrong. It is a deliberate attempt to manufacture pretexts for his strategy of "relying on the U.S. to seek independence" and "pursuing independence by military means," all while shirking responsibility for escalating tensions.

The mainland has consistently upheld peaceful reunification and the "one country, two systems" framework as the most viable path to achieving national reunification. It has also remained firm in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The truth behind the rising tensions across the Taiwan Straits is simple: The more rampant the push for "Taiwan independence," the stronger and more prepared the mainland's countermeasures become.

The DPP authorities led by Lai distorts this reality, exaggerating the so-called mainland threat in an effort to legitimize its militarized approach to separatism. This is a textbook case of "threat construction": artificially creating an enemy to justify division and confrontation. It is essentially about inventing excuses to advance separatist goals and inciting confrontation to serve political ends. In this context, Lai is a full-fledged saboteur of peace, an outright warmonger and a troublemaker in the region.

Lai's speeches are riddled with flaws and absurdity both in theory and in practice. His actions in advancing the "Taiwan independence" agenda have gravely undermined the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations, harmed the fundamental interests of the people of Taiwan and run counter to the prevailing trends of history.

There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of it. This is a fact that no person or force can alter. Those who betray the interests of the nation and attempt to split China through "Taiwan independence" will ultimately be judged and held accountable by history.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions?on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)