Dragon down the memory hole

By Chad A. Novacek

As a freshly minted Peace Corps volunteer in China, I had a very superficial understanding of the country I was serving. To fill the large gaps in knowledge of that nation’s complex history, culture and perspectives, I interacted with locals and sought out a variety of reading material. Though I examined various periods of China’s 5,000-year history, no other issue proved more fascinating than the contemporary and controversial cross-strait relationship between “China” and “Taiwan.” Leaving more questions than answers, the story was an intriguing puzzle. Why, for example, did China claim Taiwan and threaten to take it by force when both appeared prima facie two independent neighboring countries? Also, how did the U.S. become involved in this relationship to the point of risking war with another nuclear power? Comparing multiple sources on the topic, I found the answers to these difficult questions but also unearthed some startling discoveries that will forever challenge the way China specialists understand and discuss the cross-strait relationship.

We are led to believe that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the only official government of China. In reality, however, China has two legitimate central governments: the PRC, governing roughly 99 percent of Chinese territory, and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as “Taiwan.” Interestingly, the vast majority of journalists, academicians, think tank analysts and policymakers addressing this issue veil this important fact by using a set of phraseology depicting the relationship of the PRC and the ROC as one between completely disparate entities. The notion of a second Chinese government has been lost within an Orwellian “memory hole” of sorts.

Among the phrases facilitating this illusion, we see the juxtaposition of the terms “China” and “Taiwan” when describing both governments on either side of the Taiwan Strait. Consistent with this logic are additional references to “China’s government” or “Taiwan’s President,” for example. When mentioned on rare occasions, the ROC is described as the “official” or even “antiquated” name of Taiwan, thus fostering a disassociation from China. Using this terminology in such a way gives an impression of two polities as distinct as Mexico and Mongolia. Furthermore, authors claiming that Taiwan “left” China or that China and Taiwan “split amid a civil war” that “ended in 1949” reinforce this concept. We also read that “China claims Taiwan as part of its territory” and that the island may “return” to the motherland one day. While these last phrases imply some connection between the two, the message is clear: Inexplicably, Taiwan is currently not part of China, the Chinese civil war is over and there is no second Chinese government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Adequate historical understanding of the cross-strait relationship will reveal the misleading and fallacious nature of the terms above and clarify Taiwan’s connection to China, the existence of the ROC and its current relationship with the mainland government. “Taiwan” is the name of an island province incorporated into Qing Dynasty China but later ceded to and colonized by Japan for 50 years before returning to Chinese jurisdiction in 1945 following Japan’s surrender in World War II.¹ By that time, China was governed by the Nationalist Party-controlled ROC, a dysfunctional and unpopular central government enervated by corruption, an 18-year old civil war with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and subsequent Japanese invasion.

The return of Taiwan brought complications. When Japan began to colonize the island in 1895, Taiwan was a relatively new and unassimilated province of the Qing government, carrying a strong undercurrent of indigenous nationalism from mainlanders who settled the island centuries before. Throughout the colonial years, the majority Han-descendent ethnic peoples, such as the “Hoklo” or “Hakka” on Taiwan, were influenced greatly by Japan. They benefited from an advanced economy and infrastructure and came to relate to the Japanese more than to their mainland kin. Thus, when the Chinese (themselves majority Han) brutally reasserted administrative control, they further alienated their repatriated brothers and ensured that most of the original inhabitants would never embrace a Chinese identity.

As Taiwan reincorporated into the Chinese sphere, the civil war raged on between the U.S.-backed central government and the CCP. By 1949, however, the Nationalists had lost considerable support and ground to the Communists and were on the verge of defeat. Unable to influence the outcome, the U.S. watched helplessly as the war ran its course. In October of that year, the CCP founded the PRC, thus turning the civil war into one between two governments instead of one between two political parties within the ROC. Then in December, Chiang Kai-shek relocated the seat of the ROC government to the offshore province of Taiwan for a last stand against the Communists.

After precipitously losing its mainland strongholds, the ROC found salvation within the unexpected North Korean invasion of South Korea in June of 1950. Fearing a wider spread of communism throughout the region, the U.S. responded to the Korean threat and incorporated the diminished ROC into a strategic chain of allies by immediately ordering ships into the Taiwan Strait. This act prevented the PRC from ever launching a coup de grace against the ROC and altered the course of the civil war. Since then, the U.S. remains a committed participant in China’s unresolved war through self-imposed defense obligations.

Reminded of this history, audiences can now compare it to the phraseology used to portray the cross-strait relationship. First, we notice that China’s two governments are misnamed. To avoid confusion, one would neither name a sovereign nation (the ROC) after one of its provinces (Taiwan) nor use the all-encompassing name of a divided country (China) to describe only one of its governments (the PRC). It is as if the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) were called “Korea” and the Republic of Korea (ROK) was named after its offshore provincial island “Je Ju Do.” One alternative would be to call China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) “Mainland China” and “Offshore China,” respectively, just as the DPRK is called “North Korea” and the ROK “South Korea,” in order to psychologically maintain the connection with China and adhere to objectivity. Another option is to use the terms “PRC” and “ROC.” Although the PRC and the U.S. do not recognize a government that clearly exists, both U.S. and non-Chinese journalists or writers are not obliged to follow the party line as are their counterparts in Mainland China.

Also found are erroneous presumptions that Taiwan had left China in 1949 and could one day “return to the Chinese fold.” Stating that Taiwan “left” or “split from” China correctly implies that the island was indeed part of China (the ROC) prior to that year, at least since 1945. However, because the ROC continued to function on Chinese territory after 1949, Taiwan could not have left China or ceased to be a part of it. Likewise, Taiwan could not “return” to China as it had never left. And if by “China,” we mean the PRC, Taiwan Province could not return as it was never under Beijing’s jurisdiction.

Those covering this issue have somehow assumed that, despite no surrender, the ROC lost the civil war in 1949, ceased to exist and that its citizenry slipped into some geopolitical limbo under the name of Taiwan.² However, a government does not simply disappear when a rival government is established or when it relocates to an offshore province to avoid attack (while still controlling significant portions of the mainland). Outside intervention in the following year prevented the ROC’s inevitable defeat and a conclusion to the Chinese civil war.

There has been no armistice, surrender ceremony, peace treaty or complete military defeat, and thus no formal ending to the war. In fact, the two sides engaged in serious but limited military and covert operations against each other into the 1960s. It was not until the PRC stopped shelling the ROC’s Fukien Province islands of Quemoy and Matsu in 1979 that the war technically turned from hot to cold. Civil wars need not be hot to exist (recall the Korean War is not technically over), and despite the recent warming of relations between the two governments, there is still potential for a resumption of hostilities.

Combine the assertion that the Chinese civil war is over with scant mention of the ROC and constant reference to “Taiwan “ in conjunction with “China” and we have a shape-charged impression of a country named Taiwan that is completely separate from China. The ROC is largely out of sight and out of mind, and the only intact province of this fully functional Chinese government has amazingly assumed country status. No wonder people are confused and angry when Beijing threatens to take the island by force.

We can only speculate the rationale for inaccurately describing the cross-strait relationship. Most certainly, U.S. government officials make no public reference to the ROC or the Chinese civil war because the U.S. no longer recognizes the ROC, is awkwardly involved in the ongoing frozen war and retains a strategic advantage with the status quo. However, some regard Taiwan completely independent from China based upon individual notions of Taiwan’s status vis-à-vis China. This may stem from personal definitions as to what constitutes a civil war or what it means to be part of another country, but there is also an emotive agenda to distance Taiwan from China in the name of popular sovereignty and self-determination.

Additionally, writers may describe the relationship between “China” and “Taiwan” incorrectly out of habit and convenience. Perhaps editors do not want to confuse audiences accustomed to an accepted description of the cross-strait relationship by introducing more accurate phraseology. It is also plausible that some writers are just ignorant of the historical record and write unawares according to the prevailing verbiage.

So what relevance or utility comes from acknowledging the mischaracterization of the cross-strait relationship? Some maintain that ambiguity surrounding “Taiwan’s” status actually helps because all sides remain satisfied, believing their interpretation continues to hold validity. Others suggest the lack of clarity may lead to dangerous misunderstandings. In honesty, recognizing a second Chinese government or the notion that Taiwan is a province of China is not likely to discourage the Taiwan independence movement from strengthening and inadvertently sparking a violent response from Beijing. Nor is it guaranteed to encourage both Chinese governments to interact and negotiate on equal terms, although it appears that both sides are now making great strides in laying foundations for an inevitable, but peaceful, unification. Accurate characterization of the cross-strait relationship will however preserve the spirit of objectivity and expunge a gross misunderstanding from the history books.

Notes

1. The view that Taiwan returned to China in 1945 is heavily disputed with compelling arguments from both Taiwan independence advocates and proponents for unification, each citing a series of historical events, official documents and declarations to support their position.

2. The ROC continues to meet the most popular internationally accepted criteria for a sovereign state, as outlined in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. Eligibility under this protocol remains valid regardless of the extent of recognition by the international community.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Delicious  •   Digg  •   StumbleUpon  •   Facebook  •   Yahoo