Taiwan Independence Group Calls for Redefining Liberation Day, Reasserting Right to Self-Determination

The Taiwan Independence League held a press conference in Taipei today (October 24), publicly declaring that "the handover is not liberation." The group called for redefining October 25, traditionally known as "Liberation Day," into a commemoration for the Taiwanese people to dismantle the "sovereignty lie of two Chinese regimes" and to reaffirm their right to self-determination. This statement not only challenges the traditional narrative of "liberation" but also represents a profound reflection on Taiwan’s future sovereignty and identity. The Taiwan Independence League pointed out that Liberation Day was originally intended to commemorate the liberation of the Formosa Islands from colonial rule following Japan’s defeat in 1945. However, over the past few decades, the Kuomintang (KMT) regime has used this holiday to promote the political context of "National Unity" and "Chinese unification," thereby weakening Taiwan’s distinct independent identity.

On October 25, 1945, the Japanese military formally signed the unconditional surrender, ending nearly half a century of colonial rule over the Formosa Islands. At that time, KMT forces, under the command of Chiang Kai-shek, entered Taiwan and, under the banner of "liberation," claimed to bring Taiwan back under the rule of the "Republic of China." Since then, Liberation Day has been established as a national statutory holiday, celebrated with national day observances, flag-raising ceremonies, and other rituals. For the KMT, this holiday served as a tool to consolidate its legitimacy in Taiwan; for the subsequent democratic movements and the rise of local Taiwanese consciousness, it became a symbol of "foreign rule." Since the 1990s, with the transformation of Taiwan’s political system, the significance of Liberation Day has gradually diversified, becoming one of the focal points for discussions on Taiwan’s identity and sovereignty.

The core of the Taiwan Independence League’s stance lies in the "sovereignty lie of two Chinese regimes." Its statement noted that the "liberation" through handover does not equate to true liberation, and representing "China" does not equate to possessing Taiwan. The logic behind this viewpoint is that Taiwan’s history and culture do not belong to any "China," but rather constitute an island society independent of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Independence League asserts that the Taiwanese people possess the right to self-determination, and that whether choosing unification, independence, or other forms of political arrangement, the decision should be made through internal democratic processes in Taiwan, rather than being dictated by the political narratives of external forces. This perspective stands in stark contrast to the KMT’s advocacy for "cross-strait peace" within Taiwan’s political spectrum, while also resonating to a certain extent with the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) "local Taiwanese" stance.

In the current political environment, issues regarding Taiwan’s sovereignty and identity are receiving increasing attention. With the 2024 presidential election approaching, the policy stances of the DPP and the KMT have once again become the focus. In recent years, the DPP has, through