
The government in Beijing likes to portray its attitude towards Taiwan as the final resolution of its anti-colonial struggle; the end of its self-described “century of humiliation” at the hands of foreign powers. But the opposite is true. Today, as the People’s Republic of China continues its naval live fire exercises just off the island’s main ports and airports, it is Taiwan that is under siege.
Think of Taiwan as China’s Ireland. Even the timelines are similar. In the late seventeenth century, just a couple of decades after Oliver Cromwell brutally suppressed the Irish Catholic Confederation, the Qing Empire invaded Taiwan, bringing part of it under colonial rule for the first time. Even after its partial annexation in 1684, the Qing treated the island as a dangerous frontier, notable mainly for its wild “aborigines” and deadly diseases.
Some parts of the island were never conquered; upland areas with difficult terrain were left alone, so long as they did not interrupt the peace of the lowlands. The Qing regarded these areas in much the same way as British India regarded its Northwest Frontier: places of savagery in need of management and occasional punitive expeditions.
Taiwan only formally became a distinct province of the Qing Empire in 1887, two years after the end of a war with France, in which control of the island’s ports had become strategically important. The new provincial administration made a display of bringing the benefits of civilisation from the mainland: railways, medicines and taxes. Local reactions were mixed.
The island remained under Qing control for just eight years before it was snatched by Japan at the humiliating end of the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War. The treaty signed in the port city of Shimonoseki granted Japan control of Taiwan “in perpetuity and full sovereignty”. Taiwan became a colony again, this time to a different master. There was some resistance on the island, but it was rapidly snuffed out. Another set of railways, medicines and taxes were introduced.
Within a few years, people on the Chinese mainland forgot the cause of Taiwan. There was no agitation to “restore” the country to mainland control. Even the nationalist revolutionary Sun Yat-sen ignored its plight. He used the island as a revolutionary base during his campaign to overthrow the Qing Empire, but did nothing to try to foment anti-Japanese activity there. For the Nationalists, Taiwan had been lost and that was that.
This loss was then written into the country’s new constitution after the Nationalist Revolution of 1911-12. Article 3 stated simply: “The territory of the Chinese Republic consists of 22 provinces, Inner and Outer Mongolia, and Tibet.” The choice of “22” provinces explicitly excluded the former province of Taiwan. This vision of China’s territory, one limited to the mainland, was printed on all the country’s maps throughout the Twenties and Thirties. Taiwan was not part of the country.
This view was also shared by the Communist movement. At its sixth congress in 1928, the Communist Party recognised the “Taiwanese” as a separate nationality. In November 1938 the party plenum resolved to “build an anti-Japanese united front between the Chinese and the Korean, Taiwanese and other peoples”, implicitly drawing a distinction between Taiwanese and Chinese. Both Nationalists and Communists regarded the “Taiwanese” as a distinct minzu — which can mean both “nation” and “ethic group”.
It was only in the middle of the Second World War, once it looked like Japan was going to lose, that the rival Chinese leaderships “rediscovered” Taiwan. From mid-1942 onwards, the Nationalist Party (the Kuomintang) under Chiang Kai-shek went to great lengths to redefine Taiwan as truly Chinese and to stretch the “national geobody” to include the island. This was, in large part, motivated by the idea that Taiwan was vital to the defence of the country.
A few months after Japan’s surrender, a nervous group of Chinese officials arrived on the island and began to set up a new administration. But there were many in Taiwan who had no wish to be incorporated into the Republic of China. Some had benefited from the Japanese occupation, some objected to the corruption of the Chinese government, while others were simply hostile towards incomers from the mainland. Protests finally exploded on 28 February 1947 and were met with extreme violence. By the end of March, at least 5,000 Taiwanese (some say 20,000) had been killed by the mainland forces.
These colonial attitudes towards Taiwan are clearly displayed in Chiang Kai-shek’s 1947 book China’s Destiny. There, he writes that “Formosa [meaning Taiwan], the Pescadores [the islands just west of Taiwan], the Four Northeastern Provinces [Manchuria], Inner and Outer Mongolia, Sinkiang [Xinjiang], and Tibet are each a fortress (or strategic area) essential for the nation’s defense and security.” For Chiang, these outlying areas must be attached to China purely to protect the core areas of the ‘motherland’ from foreign attack.
Ironically for Chiang, Taiwan became a shield that protected him not from foreign attack but from communist control of the motherland. In 1949, at the end of the Chinese Civil War, the Guomindang government fled to the island. Initially this was only intended to be a temporary redoubt, a place to regroup before the recapture of the mainland. The Guomindang continued to present itself to the world as the legitimate government of the Republic of China and occupied China’s seat at the United Nations until 1971.
This fiction obscured the basic fact that Taiwan had only been ruled as part of the mainland for four years, from October 1945 to late 1949. But during this time the Guomindang brought, in effect, yet another colonial administration to the island. The party acted as if it were a Chinese government ruling the entire country including the mainland. With the force of military dictatorship, it imposed Mandarin over the local languages of Hokkien and Hakka and those spoken by the upland peoples. They imposed mainland norms under the banner of Chinese nationalism and attempted to impose a homogenous ‘Chinese’ identity.
The legacy of these impositions, and the resistance towards them, still divides politics in Taiwan today. The ranks of the Guomindang are still largely filled by the descendants of those who came to the island with Chiang Kai-shek. The current ruling party, the Democratic Progressive Party, represents that part of the population that resists the idea of mainland control. The family of Taiwan’s current president, Tsai Ing-wen, is of Hakka origin, for example. Just like Ireland today, the country’s politics divide over relations with “the mainland”. Even the use of that term raises hackles in Taiwan, just as it can in Ireland.
Over the 77 years since Taiwan was reincorporated into the Republic of China, the political and demographic situation has changed radically. Only a very few diehards believe the “Republic of China” will ever recapture the mainland and “reunite” the motherland under non-communist control. The island is a de facto independent state, albeit one that is not formally recognised as such by any other country. If you visit the British “Representative Office” in Taipei, you’ll discover that it has exactly the same crockery as every British embassy around the world, except that the royal coat of arms is missing from the plates. The UK, just like everyone else, treats Taiwan as an independent government, but doesn’t want to advertise the fact.
Taiwan’s non-existence has not prevented its businesses from exporting or its people from enjoying a standard of living equivalent to that in the United States, one that is vastly higher than China’s. Its passports (issued in the name of the “Republic of China” in Chinese but ‘Taiwan” in English) grant visa-free access to 145 countries, almost double China’s number. But turning this de facto independence into constitutional reality would, in the eyes of Beijing, be grounds for war.
Most Taiwanese — let’s call them that — enjoy the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The PRC is Taiwan’s biggest trading partner, many Taiwanese are related to families living on the other side of the water, and in normal times the island benefits from the relatively free flow of people and trade across it. Aside from a few fantasists, no-one in Taiwan wants a war with the PRC, but nor do they want to be “reunified” with an authoritarian state that appears to be on a political journey from “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to “national-socialism with Chinese characteristics”.
Xi Jinping learnt his history from the simplistic nationalistic books of his youth: just like Chiang Kai-shek, he is a colonialist. As the people of Tibet and Xinjiang can testify, he has a “steamroller” view of national unity. He orders homogeneity in the name of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”. He will not rest until he has ‘restored’ every rock and reef in the South China Sea and barren Himalayan mountainside to the motherland. Taiwan would be the jewel in his proletarian crown.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWith regard to the Michael Tracy article, I dug out an interesting little memento from 2003 this week: a cutting from a newspaper (possibly The Times), depicting Tony Blair as an eager little poodle before its master, George W. Bush, dressed up as a cross between a chicken and a bald eagle.
Blair is saying: “Oh, mighty chicken hawk – what does the future hold?”
Bush replies: “Bricks of solid gold are gonna fall outta my ass!”
Now, I tend to look upon my 21-year-old self and think that I was clueless and as daft as a brush. Looking at this little cutting from 18 years ago, I think my misgivings about Britain being so subservient to the US were spot on. Maybe I wasn’t so stupid after all.
We are all clever, after the fact.
We are also very good at selectively fitting the opinions that support the present facts and discarding those that don’t. And just because we might have been right in the past, it doesn’t always mean we were right for the right reasons, we might, in all probability, have just lucked out.
If divining the future, occasionally even in, what might appear to be, the simplest of circumstances was easy then we’d all be rich little financial investors, would we not ?
This was hardly the prediction of the century. It is possible to have been right about this at the time and for the right reasons while not having a clue about stock market investments
I think at that time, it was a case of having certain gut feelings about stuff that I felt instinctively strongly about – without having the breadth of knowledge or the maturity to really explain why. Which opinions I still have and which ones have been jettisoned over the years as I acquired more structured knowledge about the world and experience has been quite random. So, the learning experience, more than anything, was that gut feeling can be an important factor in decision making and you ignore it at your peril.
My gut usually tells me I am right too. Your feelings toward Bush and Blair at the time echo mine.
”It’s as if Wernher von Braun had been given all the resources in the world to run a space program and had been beaten to the moon by an African witch doctor.”
good line from Richard Hananiaanania
Not sure what’s happening at Unherd today. Normally there are three full-length pieces and three short articles. Today there are two long pieces, but they’re both reviews. One of a novel and one of a Welsh philosopher. One of the two short pieces is an original contribution by Mary Harrington while the other is this summary of interesting substack articles. Is it just a slow day at Unherd? Is this the new format going forward?
Of today’s articles, I find the summary of Substack pieces most interesting. I was introduced to Substack by Unherd (thank you). My attention is shifting there because the authors deal with the pressing issues of the day and take the approach Unherd claims for its own–think differently from the crowd.
I hope today’s edition is a just minor glitch in the Unherd matrix and we can look forward to more incisive journalism tomorrow.
Why don’t you email them to find out? I have my hands full with trying to ascertain which malign individual is disagreeing with me and simply flagging my comments for moderation.
My sense is they don’t want that type of inquiry. The only way to contact them I’m aware of is the link they provide in the membership section where they ask you to send any questions you might have about your account. There’s no general inquiries email or a ‘suggestions box’. So I will gripe in the comments section secure in the knowledge that Unherd management pays no attention to the comments.
Good luck with your mole hunt. It sounds like a version of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
You can contact them on support@unherd.freshdesk.com – the Community and Commercial Manager is Sophie Muscat.
Back to my sleuthing….
Do you lose many posts? I virtually never return to old posts so do not know If mine do the same, I post here just for my own entertainment because I find typing out stuff is fun – but their robot moderator gets me all the time on the most inane things. How will you do your sleuthing? Sounds tough, what sort of trap can you lay, what for bait?
I guess you can tell what kind ideologue it is by which bait it goes for….
Apple gets to decide whether or not their phones will monitor their owners’ infractions for the government, but it’s the government that gets to decide what constitutes an infraction… and how to handle it.
Worrying indeed. I wonder if the proverbial will hit the fan over this one.
You omit one of the most important substacks of all – on the vaccines. This guy has just been removed from Twitter. Make of his arguments what you will, but he should be part of the conversation.
https://alexberenson.substack.com
These day anyone who has been removed from Twitter is a magnet for me. In fact I think Unherd should publish some on his writing.
I must not understand this link – not knowing substack – all it gives is a few comments….I am always interested in the vaccines as all the global covid response pivots on them, seemingly irrationally.
I figured it out – the one I clicked on ‘Muzzled’ was for paying members only – most of the rest open, very fascinating, really gets it across that it appears conspiracy is the reality.
In addition to these pieces from substack I recommend warmly the following interview: https://www.mintpressnews.com/decline-us-empire-lawrence-wilkerson-afghanistan-pull-out/278326/
Isn’t this a rehashed article?
“in the year 2021, the cream of American society and the flower of its finest universities, can only understand the world as projections of the country’s own domestic neuroses.”
This is top notch stuff…..
Unherd has collected a few more gems to throw our way. This seems a second pointer to new material. I appreciate the ointers, substack organization leaves a lot to wander through.