• Home
  • Resources
    • Relevant History
    • China
    • Taiwan
    • U.S. Involvement
  • Analyses
  • Contact
  • More...
    • Home
    • Resources >
      • Relevant History
      • China
      • Taiwan
      • U.S. Involvement
    • Analyses
    • Contact
  • Home
  • Analyses
  • Contact
Resources
  • Resources
  • Relevant History
  • China
  • Taiwan
  • U.S. Involvement
Strait Perspective
AnalysisResourcesContact

RESOURCE GUIDE / HISTORY

How the Strait
became a fault line.

A civil war explains the division. It does not explain everything that came after.

Empire, authoritarian rule, diplomatic change, and democracy all shaped the Taiwan Strait. Understanding those layers makes today’s headlines easier to read.

By Matthew Floegel
Historical guide · Survey data through June 2026

Mao Zedong and Richard Nixon shaking hands in Beijing on February 21, 1972.
Richard Nixon meets Mao Zedong in Beijing, February 21, 1972. The visit preceded full diplomatic normalization by seven years. Photograph: Nixon Presidential Library, via the U.S. Office of the Historian.[7]

Three questions to keep separate.

Who governs Taiwan, who recognizes its government, and who chooses its leaders are different questions. Keeping them separate is the first step toward understanding the dispute.

Who governs?

Since 1949, the PRC has governed mainland China while the ROC government has continued on Taiwan. A claim to territory and the ability to govern it are different things.[5] [7]

Who is recognized?

The UN changed China’s representation in 1971; the United States recognized Beijing in 1979. Neither change transferred Taiwan’s administration to the PRC.[6] [8]

Who decides?

Taiwan’s transition from authoritarian rule to competitive elections gave its voters a direct role in choosing their leaders. Their preferences are essential to understanding the Strait.[10] [11] [14]

PRC · People’s Republic of ChinaThe government founded in 1949, based in Beijing. This guide uses “China” for the PRC unless discussing an earlier period.

ROC · Republic of ChinaThe government that retreated to Taiwan in 1949. “Taiwan” here refers to the society and political system governed from Taipei, rather than only the main island.

Key events

Eleven turning points, with the context that makes each one relevant today. Some periods overlap because political change rarely follows a tidy sequence.

11 selected turning points · Dates can overlap where historical processes overlap.

  1. 1683–1895

    A longer history than the civil war

    Qing rule began in 1683. Its reach varied across the island, where Indigenous communities had long lived. In 1895, after defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing ceded Taiwan and Penghu to Japan.[1] [2]

    Why it still matters

    Starting the story in 1949 leaves out Indigenous histories, imperial expansion, and fifty years of Japanese colonial rule. These experiences form part of Taiwan’s distinct historical setting.

  2. 1945–1949

    Japanese rule ends. Two governments emerge.

    The Republic of China (ROC) began administering Taiwan after Japan’s 1945 surrender. In 1949, Communist victory on the mainland led to the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The ROC government retreated to Taiwan.[3] [5] [7]

    Why it still matters

    The PRC and ROC are different governments. Beijing’s claim to Taiwan should not be confused with governing it: the PRC has never administered Taiwan. The ROC’s arrival also did not bring democracy; repression followed.

  3. 1947–1987

    Repression becomes part of the political memory

    The February 28 Incident in 1947 was followed by violent state repression. Martial law began in Taiwan in 1949. Under Kuomintang (KMT) rule, the White Terror brought political imprisonment and executions.[3]

    Why it still matters

    Taiwan’s later democracy grew out of an authoritarian past. Accounts focused only on Beijing and Washington miss the experiences of people who challenged the government on Taiwan itself.

  4. 1954–1958

    The Strait becomes a Cold War flashpoint

    The PRC shelled ROC-held offshore islands during crises in 1954–55 and 1958. The United States supported the ROC. Islands close to the mainland, including Kinmen and Matsu, became central to the confrontation.[5]

    Why it still matters

    A crisis can begin around an outlying island rather than with an invasion of Taiwan’s main island. Geography, military commitments, and uncertainty about intervention all shaped the danger.

  5. 1971

    China’s seat at the UN changes hands

    UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 recognized the PRC government’s representatives as China’s representatives at the United Nations and removed Chiang Kai-shek’s representatives. The resolution’s text does not mention Taiwan.[6] [17] [18]

    Why it still matters

    Representation at an international organization and control over territory are different questions. Beijing and Taipei draw sharply different conclusions about what this resolution means for Taiwan.

  6. 1972–1979

    Washington changes its diplomatic relationship

    Nixon’s 1972 visit opened a path toward U.S.–PRC relations. In 1979, Washington recognized the PRC government as the sole legal government of China, ended diplomatic relations with the ROC, and retained unofficial ties with Taiwan.[7] [8] [9]

    Why it still matters

    The Taiwan Relations Act created a framework for those unofficial ties and support for Taiwan’s self-defense. Diplomatic recognition changed, but U.S. involvement in Taiwan’s security continued.

  7. 1987

    Martial law ends; reform continues

    Martial law was lifted in Taiwan and Penghu in July 1987. Restrictions on political life eased, followed by further constitutional and electoral reforms. Democracy developed through a process rather than one decisive announcement.[10] [11]

    Why it still matters

    The island’s political future increasingly became a question for voters. This added a source of political authority that could not be reduced to the civil war claims of the two governments.

  8. 1996

    Voters choose a president directly

    Taiwan held its first direct presidential election in March 1996, electing Lee Teng-hui. The vote took place amid PRC missile tests and military pressure, with the United States sending naval forces to the region.[11] [12]

    Why it still matters

    The election tied the presidency directly to voters while exposing the tension between Taiwan’s democratic choices and Beijing’s claims. An election could be both a domestic event and an international crisis.

  9. 2000

    The ruling party loses the presidency

    Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidency. The transfer from the KMT to the DPP was Taiwan’s first peaceful transfer of presidential power between political parties.[12] [14]

    Why it still matters

    Competitive elections matter because governments can be replaced. Taiwan’s leadership and policies now had to be understood through party competition and public consent as well as international pressure.

  10. 2005

    Beijing writes its conditions for force into law

    The PRC adopted the Anti-Secession Law. Article 8 provides for non-peaceful means under specified conditions, including what Beijing considers Taiwan’s secession or the exhaustion of possibilities for peaceful unification.[13]

    Why it still matters

    This is a statement of Beijing’s law and policy, not a neutral settlement of Taiwan’s status. Its conditions are central to understanding how Chinese leaders describe their red lines.

  11. 1996–2024

    Direct elections become an institution

    Taiwan held eight direct presidential elections from 1996 through 2024. The historical story is therefore also one of repeated public choice, not only military crises and diplomatic negotiations.[14]

    Why it still matters

    A useful account of the Strait must keep Taiwan’s electorate in view. Foreign governments influence the island’s security, but they do not substitute for the preferences of its people.

A distinction worth keeping: administration is not the same as an agreed legal settlement. Japan renounced its claims to Taiwan and Penghu in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, but Article 2(b) named no recipient. Avoid treating the end of Japanese rule as a simple, universally accepted answer to Taiwan’s present status.[4]

Diplomatic recognition and Taiwan’s security

In the 1979 normalization arrangement, Washington recognized the PRC government as the sole legal government of China. It also acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Those are distinct formulations with different diplomatic meanings.[8]

The Taiwan Relations Act paired continued unofficial relations with provisions for Taiwan’s self-defense. It did not establish an automatic promise of U.S. military intervention.[9]

“the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means”

Taiwan Relations Act, Section 2(b)(3), 1979. An expectation stated in U.S. law.[9]

Identity and political preferences

Public opinion helps explain why the dispute cannot be understood entirely through government statements. These two questions measure different things.

How identity has changed

In NCCU’s surveys, the share choosing “Taiwanese” rose substantially between 1992 and June 2026. That change describes how respondents identify; it does not, by itself, tell us which constitutional outcome they want.[15]

63.1% chose “Taiwanese” in the June 2026 release, compared with 17.6% in 1992.

How respondents describe their identity

Selected observations · 1992–June 2026 · Percent
Self-described identity in Taiwan, selected years from 1992 to June 2026Taiwanese identity rises from 17.6 to 63.1 percent. Both Taiwanese and Chinese falls from 46.4 to 30.7. Chinese falls from 25.5 to 2.5. No response falls from 10.5 to 3.7. The full values are in the data table below.0255075100Share of respondents (%)1992200020102020Jun 20261992: Taiwanese, 17.6%2000: Taiwanese, 36.9%2010: Taiwanese, 52.7%2020: Taiwanese, 64.3%June 2026: Taiwanese, 63.1%1992: Both Taiwanese and Chinese, 46.4%2000: Both Taiwanese and Chinese, 44.1%2010: Both Taiwanese and Chinese, 39.8%2020: Both Taiwanese and Chinese, 29.9%June 2026: Both Taiwanese and Chinese, 30.7%1992: Chinese, 25.5%2000: Chinese, 12.5%2010: Chinese, 3.7%2020: Chinese, 2.6%June 2026: Chinese, 2.5%1992: No response, 10.5%2000: No response, 6.5%2010: No response, 3.8%2020: No response, 3.2%June 2026: No response, 3.7%63.1%Taiwanese30.7%Both3.7%No response2.5%Chinese

Swipe the chart to see the endpoint labels, or open the data table.

TaiwaneseBothChineseNo response
View the exact values
Identity survey data, percent of respondents
YearTaiwaneseBoth Taiwanese and ChineseChineseNo response
199217.6%46.4%25.5%10.5%
200036.9%44.1%12.5%6.5%
201052.7%39.8%3.7%3.8%
202064.3%29.9%2.6%3.2%
June 202663.1%30.7%2.5%3.7%
Source: Election Study Center, National Chengchi University. Selected points redrawn from the published series; connecting lines do not show every intervening year. June 2026 uses January–June surveys; earlier selected points are annual figures. Series and methodology[15]

Preferences about Taiwan’s future

Respondents can favor keeping the present situation while disagreeing about the future. The four status quo options include different long-term goals; adding them together does not make those goals identical.[16]

87.9% chose one of four options that maintain the status quo for now. This combines the rounded published values; the four responses express different views about the future.

Preferred approach to Taiwan’s political future

June 2026 release · Percent of respondents
0%10%20%30%40%
Keep the status quo indefinitely
34.4%
Keep it for now; decide later
25.5%
Keep it for now; move toward independence
21.7%
Keep it for now; move toward unification
6.3%
Independence as soon as possible
4.5%
Unification as soon as possible
1.3%
No response
6.4%
Maintain status quo nowChange as soon as possibleNo response
Source: Election Study Center, National Chengchi University. Labels shortened for readability. Weighted, pooled January–June 2026 surveys; percentages total 100.1 because of rounding. The chart is a historical snapshot, not a forecast. Original wording and methodology[16]

The distinction matters: identifying as Taiwanese does not necessarily mean favoring an immediate change in Taiwan’s political status. A historical account also needs to consider how voters understand their choices today.

Key terms

“One China” principle and policy

Beijing’s principle asserts that Taiwan is part of China and that the PRC is China’s sole legitimate government. Washington’s policy includes recognition of the PRC government alongside unofficial Taiwan relations and the Taiwan Relations Act. Similar language does not make the two positions identical.[8] [9] [13]

The status quo

A shorthand for the existing situation, not a single agreed blueprint. Governments differ over which actions would change it. In the survey above, respondents who favor maintaining it also differ about what should happen later.[16]

Recognition and self-government

Recognition concerns a government’s diplomatic treatment by other states. Self-government concerns who runs institutions and makes decisions in practice. The 1970s recognition shifts did not put Beijing in charge of Taiwan’s administration.[6] [8] [14]

Resolution 2758

The 1971 UN resolution addressed who represented China. Its text does not name Taiwan. Beijing argues it resolves representation for all of China, including Taiwan; Taipei rejects that interpretation. Read the text separately from the claims governments make about it.[6] [17] [18]

Sources and further reading

Original documents, historical records, and the survey data used in this guide.

This is a selective historical guide, not a complete chronology. The “Why it still matters” notes are interpretation. Official statements are evidence of a government’s position, not automatic proof that its interpretation is shared. Historical overview pages are used for past events, not current policy. Links and figures were checked September 28, 2026.

  1. National Palace MuseumTaiwan’s Indigenous peoples and Qing expansionMuseum history
  2. U.S. Office of the HistorianTreaty of Shimonoseki, 1895 — Article IIPrimary document
  3. National Human Rights Museum, TaiwanWhite Terror PeriodMuseum history
  4. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of JapanSan Francisco Peace Treaty — Article 2(b)Primary document
  5. U.S. Office of the HistorianThe Taiwan Straits Crises: 1954–55 and 1958Historical overview
  6. United Nations / USC US–China InstituteGeneral Assembly Resolution 2758, 1971Primary document · reproduction
  7. U.S. Office of the HistorianRapprochement with China, 1972Historical overview
  8. U.S. Office of the HistorianNormalization communiqué, announced December 1978Primary document
  9. American Institute in TaiwanTaiwan Relations Act, 1979 — Sections 2 and 3Primary document · archive
  10. Office of the President, TaiwanChiang Ching-kuo: chronologyOfficial historical record
  11. Office of the President, TaiwanLee Teng-hui: chronologyOfficial historical record
  12. Office of the President, TaiwanPresident Chen’s 2007 CNBC interviewOfficial account · Taiwan’s perspective
  13. National People’s Congress / CSIS InterpretAnti-Secession Law, 2005 — Articles 2 and 8PRC law · translated primary document
  14. Central Election Commission, TaiwanPresidential election records, 1996–2024Official election records
  15. Election Study Center, National Chengchi UniversityTaiwanese / Chinese Identity, June 1992–June 2026Survey series · underlying chart
  16. Election Study Center, National Chengchi UniversityIndependence / Unification preferences, June 2026Survey series · underlying chart
  17. PRC State Council Information OfficePosition paper on UNGA Resolution 2758, 2025Official position · Beijing
  18. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, TaiwanResponse on Resolution 2758, November 2024Official position · Taipei
Photograph: Nixon Presidential Library via the U.S. Office of the Historian, February 21, 1972. U.S. government photograph; public domain in the United States. The original source is linked in the caption.

CONTINUE READING

The history is the starting point.

Explore the governments, societies, and security choices shaping the Strait today.

ChinaTaiwanU.S. involvementLatest analysis
Strait Perspective

Research and analysis by Matthew Floegel.

ResourcesContactcontact@straitperspective.com

Research and analysis by Matthew Floegel

MORE

OTHER AUTHORED WORK

SOCIAL MEDIA

LinkedIn


CONTACT

contact@straitperspective.com

Allow  72 hours for response

Image description