Speaking Our Peace The Lilliputians
& the Giant
By Paul Olson, NFP President Global Warming Copenhagen: Games People Play
By Professor Bruce E. Johansen Volunteer Nebraska Peace Stratcom
The Most Dangerous Place on the Face of the Earth Whiteclay
Updates on Nebraska's tiny reservation border town. Goin' Broke Essay Winners
 Goin' Broke The Cost of War
 NFP Sticker Get Your FREE
NFP Bumper Sticker!
Just send us an Email.

One China or Two?

Chad A. Novacek

Chad Novacek is a recent graduate of the Johns Hopkins University-School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) where he obtained an MA in International Economics and China Studies.  A native of Lincoln, Nebraska, Chad lived in China for over three years as a Peace Corps volunteer, graduate student and health and safety consultant.  He remains devoted to increasing public awareness of the corporate media’s limited coverage of critical international issues such as America’s ongoing involvement in the Chinese civil war.   

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 as much as I could and sought out a variety of reading material. Though I examined various periods of China’s 5,000-year-long history, no issue proved more fascinating than the contemporary and controversial cross-strait relationship between ‘China’ and ‘Taiwan.’ This puzzling story seemed to provoke more questions than answers. Why, for example, did China claim Taiwan and threaten to take it by force when both appeared, prima facie, to be two independent neighboring countries? Further, how did the U.S. become involved in this relationship to the point of risking war with another nuclear power? Consulting multiple sources on the topic, I found the answers to these difficult questions, but also unearthed some startling discoveries that challenge the way the West perceives this cross-strait relationship.

Nowadays, 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 phraseology that depicts 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.

The use of the terms ‘China’ and ‘Taiwan’ to describe the governments on either side of the Taiwan Strait only serves to perpetuate this illusion, as do, for example, references to ‘China’s government’ or ‘Taiwan’s president.’ When mentioned on rare occasions, the Republic of China 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, assertions 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: 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, as an historical overview of this cross-strait relationship proves.

‘Taiwan’ is the name of an island province initially incorporated into Qing Dynasty China, but later ceded to and colonized by Japan for 50 years, before being returned to Chinese jurisdiction in 1945 following Japan’s surrender in World War II. At that time, China was governed by the Nationalist Party-controlled Republic of China — a dysfunctional and unpopular central government enervated by corruption, an 18-year old civil war with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Japanese invasion of the mainland.

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 that had preserved a strong undercurrent of indigenous nationalism from the mainlanders who had 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 sisters and ensured that most of the original inhabitants would never embrace a mainland Chinese identity.

As Taiwan was being reincorporated into the Chinese sphere after 1945, the civil war between the U.S.-backed the Nationalist central government and the Communist Party was raging on. By 1949 however, the Nationalists had lost considerable popular 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 Communists under Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China, thus turning the civil war into one between two governments instead of one between two political parties within the Republic of China (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 losing its mainland strongholds, the weakened ROC government got a sorely needed reprieve with 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 ROC into a strategic chain of allies by immediately ordering ships into the Taiwan Strait. This action prevented the People’s Republic from ever launching the coup de grace against the ROC and effectively altered the outcome of the civil war. Through its self-imposed defense obligations, the U.S. has remained a committed participant in China’s unresolved civil war to this day.

With this history as a backdrop, we can now more accurately analyze the phraseology used to portray the cross-strait relationship. First, we notice that China’s two governments are consistently misnamed. To avoid confusion, one would neither name a sovereign nation (the Republic of China) 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 People’s Republic). It is as if the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was 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 mentally maintain the connection with China and preserve objectivity. Another option is to use the terms “PRC” and “ROC.” Although the PRC and the U.S. do not recognize a ROC government that clearly exists, both U.S. and non-Chinese journalists and writers are not obliged to ‘follow the party line’ as are their counterparts in Mainland China.

Equally erroneous are the presumptions that Taiwan ‘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 1949 (at least since its return to Chinese jurisdiction at the end of WWII). 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 People’s Republic, Taiwan Province could not return as it was never under Beijing’s jurisdiction.

Journalists 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. [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.] 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, thereby, a conclusion to the Chinese civil war.

In the intervening six decades, there has been no armistice, no surrender ceremony, no peace treaty or definitive 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 that 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 relation to ‘China’, and we have manufactured the popular impression of a country named Taiwan that is completely separate from China. As a nation-state, the ROC is largely out of sight and out of mind, and the only intact province of this fully functional off-shore 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 on the rationale for continuing to describe the cross-strait relationship inaccurately. Most certainly, the U.S. government, which no longer recognizes the ROC but remains awkwardly involved in the ongoing civil war between the two governments, has no interest in setting the record straight. Others (such as the Taiwan independence movement, for example) do in fact regard Taiwan as completely independent from China, and hold to the current usage in the name of popular sovereignty and self-determination. The failure to accurately describe the relationship between ‘China’ and ‘Taiwan’ correctly, though, is also undoubtedly the result of habit and convenience, with politicians and journalists not wanting to confuse audiences accustomed to an accepted description of the cross-strait relationship by introducing more accurate phraseology.

So what relevance or utility comes from acknowledging the mischaracterization of the cross-strait relationship? Some will maintain that ambiguity surrounding ‘Taiwan’s status actually helps, because all sides remain satisfied believing their interpretation continues to hold validity. But that lack of clarity could equally lead to dangerous misunderstandings on the international stage if the cold war between the ROK and PRC were to suddenly become hot again.

In the final analysis, 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 an historically accurate characterization of the relationship 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). But in our never-ending quest to make peace, if we have any illusions about success, there’s no substitute for the facts.