Maintaining the “status quo” is a stop-gap measure to address international tensions and maintain stability. There is no win or lose. Maintaining the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait is eminently preferable to China’s hegemonic expansionism, and Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) is seeking to define the “status quo” with lies, claiming that Beijing is maintaining it.
Wang talks about the “one China principle” and how “Taiwan is a part of China,” and that “despite the long-term political antagonism across the Strait, China’s national sovereignty and territory has never been separated.” This is how he defines the “status quo.”
This is just the latest version of the lie that “Taiwan has been a part of China from time immemorial,” which simply does not comport with the facts.
Hong Kong was ceded to the British, and the British transferred it back, together with documents and a handover.
Taiwan was ceded to Japan through a treaty and handover documents, but after Japan was defeated in World War II, it signed a treaty that only gave up its sovereignty of Taiwan, and from that point it had no authority to hand it over to any country. It certainly did not hand it over to China.
The Manchu’s Qing Dynasty handed over Taiwan to Japan through a treaty, and the person that recorded the process in most detail was former US secretary of state and diplomat John Foster, who was present at the proceedings as US legal counsel. Foster, the grandfather of former US secretary of state John Foster Dulles, published Diplomatic Memoirs in 1909.
Foster had served as legal adviser to Qing official Li Hongzhang (李鴻章) to negotiate the peace terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki to end the First Sino-Japanese War. Just before Foster departed to return to the US, Li confided in Foster that he and his adopted son, Li Jingfang (李經方), were being accused of having given Taiwan up, which they had not intended to do, and that Li Jingfang had been ordered to go to Taiwan to handle the handover. Li Hongzhang asked Foster to help his son in this ignominious task.
Foster reluctantly agreed, and on May 30, 1895, boarded a ship with Li Jingfang in Shanghai, arriving in Tamsui the next day.
On their arrival, Li Jingfang felt unwell, and there was social unrest in Taiwan, so he requested that they not disembark and conduct the handover onboard instead. The Japanese representative, admiral Kabayama Sukenori, who was also governor-general of Taiwan, agreed.
The two parties finalized the terms on June 2, signing the handover documents that evening, and Li Jingfang and Foster set sail for Xiamen at midnight. They had been moored off the coast for 36 hours.
Wang’s fabrications cannot compete with the facts. Taiwan was ceded to Japan, the procedures had been completed in full, the treaty had been agreed upon and signed and the territory handed over.
After World War II, Japan gave up all rights to Taiwan, but there was no recipient country, nor had there been any handover procedures.
When the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were founded, neither included Taiwan, and the PRC has never even governed Taiwan.
As a result, the real “status quo” is that neither Taiwan nor the PRC has any territorial claim over the other.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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