BEIJING,jaffna tamil sex videos June 26 (Xinhua) -- Taiwan leader Lai Ching-te has doubled down on promoting separatism in the first two installments of his so-called "10 lectures on unity" campaign by recycling long-debunked narratives to lend legitimacy to his "Taiwan independence" agenda.

But despite his rhetorical repackaging, the message remains fundamentally flawed and deeply detached from both historical facts and international law.

WHY THE SO-CALLED TREATY OF SAN FRANCISCO IS INVALID ON TAIWAN

In his first "lecture" on June 22, Lai blatantly claimed that "Taiwan is a country," citing the so-called Treaty of San Francisco to argue that Japan renounced its claims over Taiwan without formally returning the island to the People's Republic of China (PRC).

This selective citation is not only misleading but also legally indefensible, as he deliberately sidestepped authoritative international legal documents, including the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, and the Instrument of Surrender signed by Japan in September 1945.

These foundational documents made clear that all Chinese territories stolen by Japan, including Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, were to be returned to China. On Oct. 25, 1945, the Chinese government announced that it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan, and the ceremony to accept Japan's surrender in Taiwan Province of the China war theater of the Allied powers was held in Taipei.

By contrast, the so-called San Francisco Peace Conference in September 1951 was convened without the participation of the PRC, the sole legal government of China since 1949.

The United States called the conference in San Francisco to determine the relations with postwar Japan and produced the so-called treaty, also known as the Treaty of Peace with Japan.

However, this treaty contravened the provisions of the Declaration by United Nations signed by 26 countries -- including the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China in 1942, which declares: "Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies."

The fact that the so-called Treaty of San Francisco was drafted and signed behind China's back was a blatant breach of postwar legal norms. As per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent. In other words, a treaty signed without China's involvement has no authority to determine the future of Chinese territory.

Notably, the Kuomintang, which was the authorities in Taiwan at that time, was not invited to the conference either, further proof that the treaty lacked legitimacy on the matter of Taiwan.

The Chinese government has always refused to recognize the Treaty of San Francisco, and has never from the outset deviated from this stance.

The fact that Lai clings to such a treaty, while completely ignoring those documents that carry real international legal weight, exposes the hollowness of his argument and the desperation behind the "Taiwan independence" narrative.

WHY UN RESOLUTION 2758 DID NOT -- AND DIDN'T NEED TO -- MENTION TAIWAN

In a further effort to muddy the waters, Lai claimed that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, adopted in 1971, "did not resolve" the issue of Taiwan's status --suggesting, falsely, that Taiwan remains outside the scope of China's sovereignty.

This argument is built on a deliberate misreading of international consensus. The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority to restore all lawful rights of the PRC and to recognize its government as the only legitimate representative of China in the United Nations, replacing the government of the Republic of China led by the Kuomintang, who fled to Taiwan following the civil war.

Why doesn't the resolution mention "Taiwan" explicitly? Because it didn't need to -- just as it didn't need to name Beijing, Shanghai, or any other part of Chinese territory. Taiwan had already been recovered from Japanese occupation since 1945. When the PRC assumed China's seat at the UN, it did so as the representative of all of China -- including Taiwan.

From the perspective of the UN and its member states, the matter was settled: there is only one China, and the PRC is its sole legal government. The notion of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" was firmly rejected then -- and remains so today.

Lai's argument that the resolution omits Taiwan's status was a sinister attempt to disregard both its legal implications and the historical context in which it was adopted.

Lai's resurrection of the "Taiwan status undetermined" theory is not a fresh take, but a stale maneuver to advance his separatist agenda. But his fallacies fail to withstand scrutiny under the established frameworks of the post-WWII global order and international law.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War, as well as the 80th anniversary of Taiwan's return to China.

China's recovery of Taiwan from Japanese occupation is a fundamental component of the post-WWII international order. The distorted arguments fabricated by Lai Ching-te cannot change the fact that Taiwan is part of China, both legally and historically. Nor can they alter the prevailing consensus of the international community on the one-China principle.