“Taiwan Status Undetermined” Narrative Could Trigger Cross-Strait Crisis
United Daily News Editorial, September 19, 2025
The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) suddenly raised the claim that “Taiwan’s final political status remains undetermined.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly expressed “thanks,” while Secretary-General Hsu Kuo-yung of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) went further, declaring that there is “no Taiwan Retrocession Day,” saying that “at that time, Taiwanese were still Japanese.” A DPP spokesman later affirmed that Mr. Hsu’s statement reflects the ruling party’s position. AIT’s revival of the Cold War-era “Taiwan undetermined status” theory appears aimed at countering Beijing’s assertion that “Taiwan belongs to China,” but at the same time it downplays the legitimacy of the postwar restoration of Taiwan to the Republic of China, triggering fierce controversy within Taiwan.
On the evening of September 12, the AIT issued a statement via a pro-DPP online media outlet, in a Q&A format, accusing China of deliberately misinterpreting wartime documents such as the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Treaty of San Francisco. The AIT stressed that “these documents never determined Taiwan’s final political status.” According to the AIT, Beijing’s false legal narrative seeks to isolate Taiwan internationally and restrict other countries from engaging with it. Although the U.S. Department of State endorsed the AIT’s stance, the position was not published on its official website, raising questions from observers.
Communist China recently held a military parade on September 3 marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War, reinforcing its historical narrative of leading the resistance against Japanese aggression and consolidating its place in the anti-fascist struggle. This script, which downplays the contributions of the Nationalist government, should have been rebutted by President Lai’s administration. Instead, President Lai’s “end of war” narrative signaled retreat and illogic. Now, by following Washington’s “Taiwan undetermined status” rhetoric—and with Mr. Hsu further claiming there was “no retrocession of Taiwan”—the DPP has severed historical continuity and contradicted itself, forfeiting its own position.
Ahead of recent U.S.-China talks, both foreign ministers and defense chiefs engaged in separate dialogues. the mainland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi warned Washington to exercise caution on core issues like Taiwan, while the U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth assured Beijing that America does not seek conflict. Three days later, the AIT dropped its signal flare. This move appears to be aimed at raising bargaining chips for the United States, forcing Beijing to pay more in negotiations. Some argue that regardless of Beijing’s response, it will accelerate military preparations—thus benefiting American pressure on Taiwan to expand arms purchases.
The United States first introduced the “undetermined status of Taiwan” line during the Korean War. Driven by strategic concerns, Washington shifted from a policy of “non-intervention in China’s civil war” to declaring “Taiwan’s status remains to be determined,” leaving room for intervention and preventing Taiwan from falling into the Soviet bloc. But after the U.S.-China Shanghai Communiqué, Washington constructed its “One China” policy and engaged Beijing peacefully, ceasing references to Taiwan’s unsettled status. Later, the United States rephrased its stance as seeking a “peaceful resolution” of the Taiwan issue.
This latest shift may not only serve as leverage in U.S.-China negotiations but also reflect Washington’s reassessment of the Taiwan Strait situation amid changing military balances between the two powers. This warrants serious reflection by the administration of President Lai Ching-te.
Since U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Taiwan has gradually been “instrumentalized” as a bargaining chip in U.S.-China relations. This “chip-ization” meant Taiwan became both a tool for Trump to pressure Beijing into concessions and a pawn in delayed U.S.-Taiwan trade negotiations to create space for larger U.S.-China talks. Recently, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick suggested that Washington and Taipei were close to reaching a major agreement—but so far, nothing concrete has materialized. Who was that “big deal” really intended for?
The revival of the undetermined status theory has thrilled pro-independence circles, who see it as a “post-recall morale boost.” But for citizens who identify with the Republic of China, it has provoked strong dissatisfaction, as they see it as deepening Taiwan’s internal divisions and identity confusion. The AIT’s move seems to stockpile bargaining chips but also hands fuel to pro-independence forces, puzzling many. Was this coordinated with the White House, and what outcome was it intended to achieve?
Most troubling is that while the “Taiwan status undetermined” narrative emboldens pro-independence groups, it undermines Taiwan’s ability to unite and move forward after the failed recall votes. It may even mislead President Lai into thinking he can regroup and continue his anti-China stance. Historically, the AIT’s role has been to prevent Taiwan from escalating tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Yet this time, it appears to be testing red lines, with Mr. Hsu seizing the moment to declare “no Taiwan Retrocession Day.” Will this not deepen public skepticism of the United States in Taiwan? Will it not raise Beijing’s suspicions and rapidly heighten cross-strait tensions?
If Taiwan never “retroceded” and has nothing to do with the Republic of China, then of which nation is Mr. Lai president today? The wartime documents, in black and white, clearly state that Taiwan was returned to the R.O.C. The AIT’s sudden revival of the “unsettled political status” argument has stirred the waters, creating new controversy. What exactly is the game plan?
From: https://udn.com/news/story/7338/9014894?from=udn-catehotnews_ch2