You don’t often hear foreign ministers dropping quotes like this beauty by Taiwanese Foreign Minister Chen Tan-sun:
“Even a country [Singapore] the size of a booger (bogey) brazenly criticized Taiwan and former president Lee Teng-hui in the United Nations. It was nothing but an effort to embrace China’s ‘balls’, forgive me using such a word.”
Singaporean Foreign Minister George Yeo responded by saying, “This recent outburst is a source of some pain and sadness to us that it should come to this.” Quite classy on Yeo’s part, I should say, because he could have just as easily come back with, “Yeah, we might be a country the size of a booger, but at least we are, technically, a country.”
(Hat tip to the Asia Pages)
15 Comments
Ehhhh, according to the Montevideo Conventions, Taiwan technically does qualify as a country (a deeply flawed one, but a country nonetheless)…those who say otherwise are merely parroting Beijing.
For those interested, Chen’s remarks in Hoklo (Taiwanese) were that Singapore “po Tiong Gok e Lam pah”, which means to brown-nose (”Po” meaning to carress, “Lam Pah” meaning ‘Da Balls.) A diplomatically unfortunate choice of words, but a major watershed event for those looking to further their ability to talk smack in Taiwanese.
Classic quote! Fondling China’s balls is the best way I’ve heard it put - ever. The UN should adopt language like that the next time they draft some more of their useless resolutions.
Parroting Beijing’s line? Taiwan is not a country not because of what Beijing says but what the Constitution and government over Taiwan represents. The constitution in power on Taiwan is the 1947 Nanjing constitution, with several administrative amendments. The government by law and reinforced by popular elections is the Republic of China. Hell, the capital is actually Nanjing, Taipei is technically the temporary provisional capital.
“Chen??s remarks in Hoklo (Taiwanese)”
the dialect is minan or hokkien. minan/ hokkien is a southern chinese dialect. most singaporean chinese are of hokkien descent. what is this thing with the taiwanese claiming hokkien as taiwan’s language? shouldn’t it be some native taiwanese aborigine language?
You’ve hit the nail on the head mw when describing the peculiarities of Taiwan. “Taiwanese independence” is actually not a political movement persay, but rather an ethnic movement (borderline xenophobic) based on identity politics. Read a good explanation as any here http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/shih.html
The author does a good job explaining the genuine motivations of Taidu beyond the public bluster and bravado of the democratic Taiwan/communist China that most unaware westerners are suckered into believing.
There are a few discrepancies with the article which I should point out.
The origins of the DPP are not that of the ethnic divide that plagues Taiwan. Unlike what the author implied, it was not a reaction to mainlander dominance persay that triggered the formation of the DPP, but rather KMT oppression. The DPP is(or was I should say) just like the name implies, the Democratic Progressive Party, an opposition leftist party formed in the 80’s to oppose the one party conservative government of the KMT. Many of the DPP’s founders were in fact mainlanders no less, whom have mostly bailed the party now it has revealed its separatists stripe. Some of them have joined the PFP, the major pro-unification party outside the KMT.
Another problem is the author is two generous by half on arch-quisling Lee Teng Hui. The traitorous dog had never intended any sort of inclusive New Taiwan nationality, but has been consistantly anti-mainlander and anti-Chinese since he came into power. If the author were more familiar with what Lee actually said in that Japanese interview, he would know full well that Lee Teng Hui is little more than a “nativist” collaborator and had little desire to reach a rapproachment with either the mainland or his own mainlander constituency. It wasn’t internal divisions that cost the KMT the 2000 elections as Lee Teng Hui bemoans and the author amateurishly regurgitates. The recognized truth is that Lee Teng Hui, while chairman of the KMT, purposefully stumped for the DPP opposition candidate. This was what triggered James Soong’s defection from the KMT to form the PFP. There are a few more points to quibble over in the article, but the genuine truth of it outweighs the errors.
Bravo, Jing!!
Your last bit says it all.The reality could be that Taiwan is, like Korea and Japan, resigned to the fact that China is going to be the heavyweight in this region.
Each country (or province, as in Taiwan’s case) is re-aligning itself to this fact, and trying to assert its own identity. Taiwan in the end will simply be drawn into the Chinese spiderweb and CHOMP.
Anyway, all the fuss about Hoklo, Hakka, whatever, sounds more like “clan” wars rather than racial, of the type you learn in Southeast Asian history about the fights in old Malaya or Singapore.
Anyway, Singapore’s reaction to the ball-carrying bit is hilarious. Minister George Yeo found the remarks “extreme” and “painful.” Ouch!
Jing,
I agree with you about the messed up ROC constitution, but I stand by my remarks that according to what the Montevideo Convention of what makes up a nation-state (permanent population, discrete territory, an effective governing body, and the ability to enter into diplomatic relations with other countries), Taiwan qualifies. All the more reason to fix the constitution to better reflect reality. As long as Taiwan continues to claim China, no one will take it seriously. Not even booger-sized nations like Singapore.
mw, I myself dislike the term “Taiwanese” being applied to the Hokkien spoken in Taiwan (yes, shouldn’t the myriad aboriginal languages still present there be truly considered Taiwanese?). But I included the word “Taiwanese” for those who might not be familiar with the term.
And actually, the Hokkien dialect spoken in Taiwan differs greatly in some respects from that spoken in Fujian and Singapore (the presence of Japanese “loan words”, for example). Over 100 years of seperation from the continent did a lot to change the language and the culture of Taiwan. However, this does not by any means make them mutually unintelligible.
Jing, could it be that the divide in Taiwan is not as much “ethnic” as it is “cultural”? China-born Taiwanese, or “Mainlanders” (not many around today who can truly be called that) tend to hold onto a cultural image of “China” that doesn’t gel with today’s Taiwan. This idea of Taiwan being ethnically “Chinese” doesn’t wash; Isn’t today’s idea of “Chineseness” but a modern identity construct introduced to China by the west in the 19th century? Many different ethnicities can belong to this idea of “China” granted they’re willing to join. One of the biggest reasons why this continues to be an issue is that the KMT’s One China propaganda was introduced into all facets of society following 1949, and continues to be felt today. If the “ethnic conflict” truly was a question of ethnicity (which can’t be changed) and not culture (which can), why are the pan-blues so afraid about the “Taiwanization” of Taiwan? What does the DPP have to do to convince those who identify with China that they won’t be dragged out and shot in the night?
What we have in the case of Taiwan is an island that has a different historic experience than the rest of China for 105 of the past 109 years, and this unique experience has fundamentally changed Taiwan’s culture to something that is not “Chinese”, “Japanese”, or any other group that has had influence in Taiwan over the past 400 years.
The founders of the DPP did indeed, as you point out, join the “tangwai” movement, and later the DPP as a reaction to the KMT’s authoritarianism. However, I don’t think their ejections from the DPP were because of their eventual ideological differences with the rest of the DPP as much as their political naivete making them easy targets for the savvy young “nativist” turks that ended up bouncing them. It was only after being pushed out of power that people like Hsu Hsin-liang and Shi Ming-teh started cozying up to the pan-blues; it was basically their only way back onto the national stage.
As for Lee Teng-hui, his stance has always been that if you identify with Taiwan, then you’re pretty much a Taiwanese, and therefore OK in his book. His stance against the pro-unification crowd has always been “if you’re not with us you’re against us” (not very conducive to inter-cultural discourse, I recognize), not anti-”Mainlander” per se.
As for your assertion that he came right out and stumped for the DPP in 2000, I would like you to show proof that Lee actually came out in public and asked voters to throw in with the DPP. Soong’s defection from the KMT was purely driven by sour grapes that Lien Chan was nominated as the KMT candidate instead of he, not by Lee’s purported support of the DPP. To this day, the pan-blues refuse to accept the fact that they lost the presidency because of their refusal to acknowledge that Taiwan is not a part of China, and instead choose to blame Lee. Although both sides of the political debate in Taiwan would like to imagine Lee Teng-hui as a diabolical genius taking apart the KMT machinery from within singlehandedly, they often overlook the simple fact that most Taiwanese were tired of the One-China ideology, tired of the KMT’s corruption, and ready to put authoritarianism behind them.
Taiwan independence supporters are therefore not all the bloodthirsty xenophobes the pan-blues like to trot out before complaining about “green terror”. Indeed, in the past, polls have found that if it weren’t for the threat from China, most Taiwanese would support independence. The ongoing efforts to paint all ‘nativists’ as xenophobic IT-supporting ideologues obsfucates the picture and ignores the fact that there is a growing Taiwanese identity, and that all groups, no matter where they come from, are welcome to join.
It’s good to see another person with a fairly nuanced understanding of the political landscape on Taiwan. I’d like to offer a few contrary statements, chiefly that the divide on Taiwan is not so much cultural as it is ethnic. This is a tricky issue as the cultural and ethnic cleavages overlap to some degree. Simply put, the most hardline separatists elements do not wish for merely Taiwanese nationality but also a rejection of Chinese culture and ethnicity. Thus complete localization on Taiwan is impossible. To contextualize this in a metaphor, it would be as if a more inclusive political movement was attempting to woo minority voters even while the core of this movement is dominated by the Ku Klux Klan. While admittedly there are Taiwanese who do recognize themselves as Taiwanese Nationals but Chinese ethnicity (alas Singapore), they are not in power within the political circles of the DPP and TSU. I have spoken to many such quislings and this is their mentality for whatever dark reasons. Thus it is a matter of ethnicity not culture (despite the ironic fact that the Hokklo, Hakka, and mainlanders are all technically one identity, Han Chinese). If you want poignant evidence of this, refer to the A Better Tomorrow(A Taiwan blog) archives such as here http://www.bokane.org/abtom/ar.....tures.html , note the first picture and the political sign.
Also note this conversation here at the end of this post. http://www.bokane.org/abtom/ar.....unday.html
As for Lee Teng Hui, you are right, he is not merely anti-mainlander but simply anti-Chinese in general. As for him stumping for Chen Shui Bian, how could you have possibly missed it. His actions after the 2000 elections simply speak for itself where his true loyalties lie, and it was certainly not the KMT where he was the party chairman. In regards to James Soong, Soong was running a counter platform within the KMT in order to contest Lien’s nomination (supported by Lee as party Chairman), essentially similar to an American party caucus. However, Soong did not defect due to sour grapes as you stated, but rather he was exepelled from the party by Lee Teng Hui.
Also, I’d like to point out that the vast majority of people on Taiwan, not just the TI’ers are indeed xenophobic. One only needs to read up on the treatment of migrant workers from SE Asia. The siege mentality inherent in Taiwan is natural, but hardly becoming of a liberal democracy. The TI faction just happens to be xenophobic against their fellow citizens as well. I had never mentioned that all nativists acted as xenophobic IT supporting ideologues… just the majority of them. The majority of Taidu supporters I have spoken too are indeed xenophobic ideologues, only rarely have I encountered a moderate who considers themselves ethnically Chinese but politically Taiwanese.
In the end of course, none of this identity politics really matters to me to any significant degree, as I find it merely academic. I do agree with you that a Taiwanese identity is taking shape in Taiwan, though it is not as inclusive as you imply. So far, it is overwhelmingly dominated by Hokklo Chinese; the mainland descendants, Hakka, and aboriginals are for the most part not included. However, I could care less about whatever social phenomenon does emerge on Taiwan. I’m a firm adherent of the Marxist-Realist school of thought; to paraphrase Mao, something every communist must know, that all political power stems from the barrel of the gun. Thus what I am most concerned is the modernization of the PLA and the greater geo-political dance between the PRC and the U.S. Taiwanese identity is irrelevant, because as soon as the PRC feels confident it can get away with an invasion or if it feels that this course of action is the best among alternatives, they will unleash the PLA irregardless of what the Taidu dogs believe. Liberalist notions of self-determination, independence, and democracy be damned, reunification is the paramount goal and power is the final arbiter of such affairs.
I see the poster you point to as an excellent example of what I??m talking about here; most people who identify themselves as ?橫Taiwanese?? see that label as something that is all inclusive. ??No matter if you??re ??local??, ???Mainlander??, ??aborigine??, an ???old immigrant?? or a ??new immigrant??????? These people who put up this poster in Tainan are obviously emphasizing the National Identity aspect of the issue, and use the term ??Chinese?? not as an ethnic label, but as a ??National?? label. If viewed from an enlightened perspective (devoid of all outdated ??ethnic?? labeling) the term ??Taiwanese?? can now be embraced as an umbrella term for citizens of Taiwan, regardless of ethnicity, much in the way that there are Irish Americans, French Canadians, Dutch South Africans, and Han Chinese.
I think you overemphasize the degree of ??Hoklo Chauvanism?? that exists in Taiwan toward China-born Taiwanese and their descendents; in reality there exists a very small proportion of ??benshengren?? who would like nothing better than to string all the ??Mainlanders?? up, but because of the fact that they get a disproportionate amount of media coverage (probably due to the fact that they shout the loudest and make for interesting news) many in Taiwan are led to believe they represent the majority. Same thing can be said for hardcore ??back to China now?? pan-blue supporters; the vast majority of pan-blue voters are not as extreme as, say, New Party supporters.
I would also say that the conversation you linked to (excellent blog, by the way, I wish Wayne would post more these days) is more indicative of national identity than ethnic identity. Sure, ethnicity DOES overlap in this issue, as seeing the traditional enmity between the Han and the Hakka on Taiwan, but I think if the Hakka woman was referring to ethnicity she would have referred to Wayne??s gal as ??Han Nian??.
As for Lee Teng-hui??s stumping for Chen DURING the election, it simply never happened. I agree with you that after the elections and after he was forced to step down as KMT chairman he pretty much did come out of the closet as an independence supporter, but there is no record of him advocating ??dumping Lien to save Chen?? in the run-up to the election. The conspiracy theory among the pan-blues that he backed Chen openly before the polls is simply that, a pipe dream the KMT holds to shield Lien from the reality that he ran two half-assed campaigns utterly divorced from reality.
On one hand you??re right about the xenophobia in Taiwan vis a vis all foreigners in general; but I wouldn??t pin it just on people on Taiwan. During my years living in Seoul I witnessed multiple examples of mistreatment of foreign laborers. During trips to Hong Kong and Beijing, I could see that SE Asians pretty much universally get the shit end of the stick. So, no, mistreatment of SE Asians is not indicative of a ?橫siege mentality?? that is unique to Taiwan. True, it isn??t becoming of a democracy like Taiwan, but I would point out that Taiwan is working to do a lot more for its foreign laborers in the form of NGO??s and proposed bills in the legislature to bring the country more in line with UN human rights standards than other Asian nations are.
Considering the language you use in addressing those ??quislings?? who do not share your views on ethnicity, national identity, and geopolitics in general, it doesn??t surprise me that you encounter a great deal of resentment from them. Perhaps by dropping the outdated and discredited Maoist slogans you frequently use in your discourse will you find that ??Taidu dogs?? like myself by and large will be willing to meet you halfway and engage you rationally.
The biggest problem we face here is that stalwarts of all sides here (unificationist and pro-independence) seem content to only talk amongst themselves in their hermetically-sealed slogan echo chambers. I support Taiwan??s right to choose its own course with or without China as long as the decision is made by the people of Taiwan. At the same time I admit there??s room for political compromise on both sides. Perhaps Taiwan could, if it chooses, unify with China. Perhaps it won??t. Perhaps Beijing could finally learn that it can catch more flies with honey and stop alienating Taiwan and the rest of the world with its rhetoric (you see where I??m getting at here). But the choice lies with Taiwan alone.
Mao was wrong in his beliefs, and the fact that China is a lot stronger today domestically and internationally under the principle of political pragmatism than it was under the barrel of a gun says a lot. Wake up guys, it??s the 21st Century; there??s no place in the world for this ??sea of fire?? talk. If China really wants the rest of the world to respect it as a great power it will need to learn how to respect dissenting voices, and work with them as equals to find an answer. Empty slogans like ??self-determination be damned?? only serve to further alienate Taiwan and show the rest of the world that China isn??t ready to join it in civilized discourse.
In other words, Taiwanese becomes a `national identity’ comprising mainlanders, Taiwanese-born, old immigrant, new immigrant, aborigines, etc.
Most of them are of ethnic origin from the mainland, apart from aborigines. What’s the difference between this Taiwan as the country you envisage, and two Chinas, or a country divided?
Traditional enmity between Hakka and Han? Aren’t the Hakka Han people as well, many of whom came from north to south? We all probably know Deng was of Hakka origin.
These are `clan’ enmities, not racial ones.
Taiwan may have developed under a different system, since 1894. But so did Hong Kong since 1842. Hong Kong has small minorities(longtime British settlers, Eurasians, Indians who call it home.
Hong Kong is more advanced and its culture more cosmopolitan. But it does not distract from the fact that most of the people are Chinese, and is part of China, just like Taiwan - unless you can offer a better case than just saying it is the choice of the Taiwanese people.
Actually Yen Jun, this is a very interesting point you bring up. First off, on the ethnic origins of the “Hoklo” Taiwanese, it is known that that the very first settlers from the Fujian area (Zhangzhou and Quanzhou were mostly single men who crossed the strait to what John Shepherd called the “southwest core” in the Tainan areain his book “Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier”. Over time these men intermarried with the local plains “pingpu” aborigine population as Han settlements spread north toward the Ta Chia river in present-day Taichung county. When an aboriginal woman married a Han Chinese, she would be given a Chinese name and entered into the family’s geneology book. There are also instances of plains aborigines in the Taichung area who unilaterally adopted “Chinese” culture in order to protect their land-holding rights and further their commercial interests. If you read the accounts of western missionaries and other foreigners up to the late 1800s there was still a very strong pingpu presence on the west coast. After the Japanese moved in these groups mysteriously “disappeared” into the Han population. These developments all point to the fact that most “bensheng” Taiwanese today have aboriginal blood. So, no, most of them are not as apart from the aborigines as many would like to think.
In terms of the seperate Taiwan I’ve mentioned, the differences, again, are based on cultural differences. The biggest cultural difference we see today between Taiwan and the PRC is that democracy has now become a fundamental part of Taiwanese society, where people expect the right to self-expression and choice of government. China’s society does not (yet).
Taiwan also experienced 50 years of Japanese colonial rule, the latter part of that period being marked by an intensive “kominka” program, which was an effort by the Japanese government to fully “Japanize” and assimilate the local population as war broke out in Asia (this program, BTW, was a lot different than the more brutal version that was pushed on the Koreans; Hokkien was allowed to be spoken, for one, and Taiwan was even allowed to be represented in the Japanese parliament right before the war ended). The result of this program was the adoption of Japanese names, language, and a lasting affinity among the older generation to all things Japanese. This is one of the reasons why the KMT instituted such a thorough “sinicization” program in Taiwan after retreaing there; although Han culture was still evident in postwar Taiwan, it was by-and-large swallowed up by Japanese culture.
The following takeover by the KMT also did a lot to illustrate the difference between Taiwan and China. The February 28, 1947 massacre of local Taiwanese and the ensuing 50 years of White Terror only added to Hoklo resentment (which, as I mentioned in an earlier post, still survives among some of the more hardcore elements of the pan-green camp).
I would also like to point out that major historic events not shared by China and Taiwan were not confined to just Taiwan; China had the 1911 revolution, and the May 4 Movement, and the misfortune of going through the war against Japan, the Great Leap Forward, fighting in the Korean War, the Cultural Revolution, and the Tiananmen Square massacre, all of which changed the basic character of the country forever.
Taiwan and China were seperated for 105 of the last 109 years, each having had its own unique experiences in the 20th Century. Both cultures have changed dramatically during this time, and with each passing year we can see Taiwan’s collective zeitgeist taking larger and larger steps away from the idyll of “China” that the KMT forced upon it for 50 years.
There is only one China, but I’m afraid Taiwan ceased to be a part of it a long time ago.
About the Hakka, there was indeed a traditional emnity between they and the Hoklo, as both sides jostled for land and commercial interests all over the island (not so much today, but to the point where the Hakka still feel culturally threatened by the majority presence of the Hoklo).
As a side-note if you’re interested, Chinese scholars carried out genetic studies in the 90’s and found that the Hakka originated from 2 seperate groups, one from the north and one from the south, which shows close connections to the She people and other southern aboriginal groups in the Indo-China area.
(http://home.i1.net/~alchu/hakka/toihak0.htm#aa)
Anyhow, the Hong Kong example is not applicable to Taiwan’s situation for a number of reasons:
1) The Chinese on Hong Kong were allowed to maintain their language and culture in the presence of a relatively small colonial government that was not bent on re-molding the local culture. The Japanese were, and did.
2) Hong Kong was not isolated from China for nearly as long as Taiwan was; travel between HK and the rest of China were permitted under the British all the way to 1949. Even afterward, Hong Kong saw a realtively massive influx of Mainland refugees proportionate to its population, which helped maintain its “Chinese” cultural identity. While Taiwan saw a large number of “mainlanders” come over following the war, they represented a relatively small percentage of the population that in comparison with their political power.
3) From a political perspective, the PRC never alienated HK as it has done so with Taiwan by threatening military action against it. Hong Kong citizens looked forward to the handover in 1997 because it was guaranteed that they would retain their political rights and their economy wouldn’t suffer. It has, and Taiwanese have been watching the entire time what the One China Two Systems formula means. Simultaneously, China’s military threat hardly shows the “brotherly love” Beijing professes for its “Taiwan brethern”. This threat, and the failure of Hong Kong, has given Taiwanese a chance to reflect on what they are and what they aren’t. And they’ve decided they aren’t and don’t want to be part of China.
The LA Times ran an interesting story the other day about China’s need to change its foreign policy strategies, and interviewed a PRC scholar who thinks as much:
http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....ines-world
But let me leave you with a few questions of my own:
Why would Taiwanese give up their sovereignity, their government, their democracy, to become a locality of a non-democratic country?
If the idea of One Nation hinges on the idea of One Race, or One Culture, why hasn’t Mexico been returned to Spain? Aren’t they all supposedly culturally Spanish? Or is it that over the years Mexicans and Spaniards have become seperated by radicallty different cultural narratives?
How far back does the PRC think it can go to claim “historical lands”? Why does it continue to claim an island that was ceded (2 governments removed from itself) “in perpetuity”? What is the legal precedent for the claim? (and no, the Cairo declaration is not legally binding).
How does the PRC explain its claim to Taiwan using the Cairo Declaration while completely ignoring the San Francisco treaty, in which Japan renounced Taiwan to no one?
Was Taiwan “seized” from China, or was it ceded by the legally binding Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed by official envoys of the Qing government?
I have yet to talk with a unificationist who can answer these questions without resorting to sloganeering.
Thank you, Jason, I believe Jing has answered the points.
From my side, I see the mainland side as (more)politically pragmatic, and the Taiwanese separatists as political oppurtunists.
Reclaiming Taiwan is only partly an emotional issue.
It completes, for China, the healing process of 150 years of engaging the `modern’ world.
But it is also politically astute. As Jing as stated, an independent Taiwan will be intensely hostile to Chinese interests. Will the USA, for example, tolerate Mexico signing a joint treaty of defence with mainland China?
Taiwan’s separatists have realised that the old pipe dream about re-claiming the fast-changing mainland is no longer valid.
But, if the mainland was still riven by political struggles, isolated and backward, wouldn’t the unificationists still be holding sway in Taiwan?
Whether it’s the 19th or the 22nd century, a country does not compromise on an issue of its integrity. (Though, in your view, this might only be perceived.)
America fought a civil war to prevent the secession of the South.
Blood-and-iron Bismarck forged Germany together from coercion and persuasion. Vittorio Emanuele (hope I am correct here, my Italian history a bit fuzzy) did it in Italy, as well.
Does all this count as sloganeering? Cheers! :0
as a hakka, i have always considered myself as a han though i was born and raised in singapore. so have the hokkiens in singapore. we are singaporeans but ethnically chinese, no two ways about it.
A number of redundant questions that I’ve answer half a dozen times no less, but I shall do so again.
1) Taiwan has no reason to give up its democratic government and de-facto sovreignty and become a provincial government of an authoritarian state. Though I on the other hand as I stated earlier, simply do not care about Taiwanese desires and find Chinese interests to be paramount.
2) The definition of a nation is fluid and derived from historical context and conditions. The Spain/Mexico juxtaposition is a complete canard since the idea of nationhood is unique to each individual nation.
3) The Chinese claims to Taiwan go as far back as 350 years ago when Taiwan first entered the periphery of the Chinese state when Ming loyalists settled on the island. It’s (the PRC) current legal claim to Taiwan is based upon the fact that Taiwan was retroceeded back to the Republic of China following world war 2 and as the successor government to the RoC, the PRC inherets all of its territories. Can you prove why the Cairo declaration is not binding? The instruments of the Cairo declaration were later included into the Potsdam declaration. Which were also included in the Japanese instrument of surrender aboard the Missouri. That Taiwan was retroceeded to China by Japan has a number of signatories, including including representatives from both Japan, the RoC, and the United States and many other allied powers.
4) The PRC does not ignore the San Francisco peace treaty. It just happened to be that neither the PRC nor the RoC were signatories of that treaty. In any case, the San Francisco Treaty does not in anyway negate the PRC’s claim. The one clause where it states that Japan simply renounces all claims to Taiwan, the pescadores, etc is tortuouslly interpreted by separatists to conclude that Taiwan was never returned to China(RoC). Technically speaking, the letter of the agreement simply states that Japan renounces its claims, not that renounced it and Taiwan become somehow terra nullius and thus subject to self-determination under U.N. guidelines. That Japan renounced its claims is concrete fact. The subsequent question asked would be who is the new owner of Taiwan. The Cairo and Potsdam declarations along with the signed Japanese instrument of surrender point to the fact that the RoC is the sovreign government over Taiwan. Simply put, this takes precedence over U.N. guidelines regarding self-determination. Taidu separatists would like interpret that one article of the San Francisco peace treaty as uncritically as possible, a vary narrow and linear interpretation that since the clause did not specify a new owner, then Taiwan must be independent. I’m afraid that this is simply not true, because other sources plainly state that the owner is to be the RoC and the San Francisco treaty does not negate those other claims but simply sets the groundwork for them.
5) Taiwan was ceeded to Japan after the treaty of Shimonoseki. However, the treaty of Shimonoseki was signed on conclusion of the first Sino-Japanese war where the Japanese belligerents demanded Taiwan as part of its spoils. It was not by choice that the Qing government chose to renounce its claims on Taiwan, this should be obvious as evidenced by the short lived Republic of Taiwan orchestrated by the last Qing governor of Taiwan that was designed to waylay a Japanese occupation. In either case, in 1941, it was declared by the RoC government that henceforth all treaties and agreements signed between the RoC and Japan prior to 1941 would be rendered null and void.
I have answered your questions and it is obvious that Taiwan is indeed part of China(RoC). As for the PRC’s claim, it is derived from the fact that it was the victor in the Chinese civil war and thus won sovreignty over all Chinese territories. Taidu separatists can argue whatever they like, but argueing that Taiwan is not part of China is simply self-delusional and originates from a quisling anti-Chinese mentality. They would have better luck argueing that Taiwan is a democratic and liberal society and that it shouldn’t be taken over by a communist authoritarian state, as the PRC has little to rebut this.
Ironically, it is this more powerful arguement for Taiwanese separatism that is the one less often used. Instead, the separatists constantly prattle on about the San Francisco peace treaty, or how Taiwan has never been a part of China, or that Taiwanese are not Chinese, or indulge in disgusting “self-hating” racist attacks (I have witnessed these myself by proclaimed Taiwanese independence advocates).
Simply put, my position, and I suppose the PRC position is that Taiwan is historically a part of China. Reunification is essential to finally put to a conclusion the Chinese civil war. Taiwan must not be allowed to declare independence because it will be intensely hostile to Chinese interests and an agent of Japanese/American interests. (see U.S./Cuba)And finally it would increase PRC prestige and geopolitical power by reincorporating Taiwan and provide a footprint into the Pacific as part of the strategy of defense-in-depth. Those are the principal reasons for reunification, Nationalism and history are simply tools with which to exercise those claims.
Though to be honest, I wouldn’t mind a neutral Finlandized independent Taiwan. However the present political circumstances will mean that an independent Taiwan while by its very nature be hostile to the mainland, thus independence is unacceptable.
Why are you writing in English, Jing?