Gerrit Van der Wees’ latest article in the Taipei Times detailed, chronologically, Taiwan’s history; by itself, it was an admiral achievement, but he did not use the term “China” correctly (“When Taiwan was China’s (for Seven Years),” Feb. 27, page 13).
The meaning of “China” (中國) has changed since its first use during the Zhou Dynasty (周朝). It referred to the Kingdom of Zhou as the center of power, since it was regarded the emperor of all kingdoms in that part of East Asia at that time.
However, “China” also referred to each kingdom’s capital. “China” meant the center of power, rather the name of the state.
We should look at dynastic names as the name of the governments and “China” as the territory that the dynasty ruled.
The Yuan Dynasty (元) referred to itself as “China” when dealing with foreign countries. It was the same for other dynasties, such as the Ming (明) and Qing (清).
Similarly, in the West, India was territory, but it was ruled by the British empire before gaining independence after World War II.
Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Australia and numerous British colonies were the same.
New Zealand and Australia were British colonies, but when the British left, New Zealand chose not to join the Commonwealth of Australia and became an independent nation. Ceylon, which was not part of India, also became an independent nation after the British left.
Modern academics of East Asian studies have begun to study the history of Manchus on their own merits and not as a part of Chinese history.
I will not repeat the excellent chronology of Taiwan’s rulers as spelled out in Van der Wees’ article, but I will look at Taiwan’s history from the point of view of the Manchus who ruled China for 267 years.
In 1644, with only 120,000 men, Manchus began the conquest of the Ming Dynasty and by 1673, they completed their mission and its “Two Capital Cities and Thirteen Provinces” formed part of the Qing Dynasty’s “China Proper Eighteen Provinces,” which did not include other Qing territories like Manchuria, Mongolia, East Turkestan and Tibet, all of which, except Manchuria, were Qing colonies.
In 1683, after defeating Ming loyalist Cheng Ke-shuang (鄭克塽), the Qing nominally, without effective control, included Taiwan as part of its colonial territory.
In 1887, fearful of Japanese annexation of Taiwan, the Qing declared Taiwan a province as one of its colonial possessions.
Then, in 1895, the Qing officially ceded Taiwan to Japan and Taiwan became a Japanese colony.
After World War II, US General Douglas MacArthur, as a representative of the Allied Powers, ordered Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) to receive the Japanese surrender in Taiwan.
After being defeated by the Chinese Communist Party, Chiang’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) fled to Taiwan without the permission of the Allied Powers or the consent of Taiwanese.
Even while supporting the Republic of China government in Taiwan before 1979, the US has never recognized the Republic of China’s sovereignty over Taiwan.
The US’ position on Taiwan’s status, to this day, is still “undetermined.”
The legitimate government of China, the People’s Republic of China, has never ruled Taiwan even for a day.
Taiwan and China were colonies of the Qing Dynasty, they did not belong to each other.
Taiwan then became part of the Japanese empire, followed by the occupation by the Allied Powers represented by Chiang, who illegally occupied Taiwan after being defeated by the Chinese Communist Party.
Taiwan is a now fully fledged liberal democracy with freedom of speech and a prosperous society.
Taiwan has never been a part of “China,” not for seven years, not even for a day.
Sebo Koh is a former chairman of the World United Formosans for Independence, USA and a former publisher of the Taiwan Tribune (US).
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS