The international newswires generally present the facts as they happen. They pick out the essential news items, describe them in a brief and easy-to-read text, and send them out into the world.
However, every once in a while there is a text that is repeated so often by the newswires that the general public starts to accept it as a "fact," whether it is fiction or not.
There is a sentence that reappears in virtually every single article by AP, AFP or Reuters about Taiwan and China, which seems to be accepted as a "fact" these days. The sentence generally goes as follows: "Taiwan split away from China in 1949 after the Chinese Civil War. Beijing still sees the island as part of its territory, to be reunited by force, if necessary."
This sentence conjures up the image that, in the mid-1940s, Taiwan was somehow part of China, and that it left the fold. In this picture, it makes it sound right and reasonable for China to "want it back."
The reality is a bit more complex: In 1895 Taiwan was ceded to Japan in perpetuity, and through 1945 it was a Japanese colony. The history before 1895 was even more complex, but suffice it to say that the Chinese emperors never gave Taiwan a thought, and hardly ever had any administrative control over it until 1887, when the Manchus briefly made it a Chinese province, which it was for a mere eight years.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) were battling each other in China, and neither cared much about Taiwan, which was under Japanese control. Records show that the CCP, the predecessors of the present authorities in Beijing, supported Taiwan's independence from Japan. Mao Zedong (
The picture started to change in 1942-1943, during the run-up to the Cairo Conference, when Chiang Kai-shek (
After the end of the war and the capitulation of Japan, the commander of the Allied forces, General Douglas MacArthur, authorized a temporary occupation of Taiwan by the KMT.
In the meantime, the civil war in China erupted again, in 1949. Chiang and his government and remaining troops had to flee to Taiwan, and the occupation was not so temporary anymore. The facts show that Taiwan did not "split off" from China, but was occupied by the losing side of the Chinese Civil War -- an essential difference.
It is also essential to point out that Taiwan was never -- even for one day -- in its history a part of the People's Republic of China. It is thus fallacious to say that it somehow should be "reunified" with China.
It is of course common knowledge that the KMT authorities during their 40 odd years of martial law pursued the "unification" of China under their rule, but as the decades passed, this became less feasible or realistic. Unfortunately, from an international perspective, their pursuit became synonymous with "Taiwan," but the difference is essential.
After the Taiwanese people brought about their momentous transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the rest of the world should have adjusted its policy towards the nation. The old and anachronistic "one China" policy was devised in response to a situation in which two governments, the KMT and the CCP, each claimed to represent China.
This has changed: There is indeed one government -- in Beijing -- representing China. But in Taiwan there is no longer a regime claiming to be the legitimate government of China, but a democratic government, representing the people of Taiwan.
An overwhelming majority of the people in Taiwan, whether pan-blue or pan-green, are proud of their country, want to preserve their hard-won freedom and democracy, and would like their country to be accepted as a full and equal member of the international family of nations.
All this is of course a bit long for the newswires to put in their reports. But they could stick a bit closer to the facts by including something along the following lines: Taiwan was a Japanese colony until 1945, after which it was occupied by Chiang's KMT -- the losing side of the Chinese civil war. It made a momentous transition to democracy in the early 1990s.
Beijing sees the democratic nation of 23 million as a part of Chinese territory. The Taiwanese, on the other hand, want to preserve their hard-won freedom and democracy. This is a more complete and accurate picture of Taiwan's complex history.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS