Wed, Sep 17, 2025 page8

• CCP desperate as narrative crumbles

  • By Raymond Sung 宋承恩
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions.

  A CCP fabrication in the past few months is that the PRC government succeeded the Republic of China (ROC) government in 1949, making Taiwan a part of its territory. As a result, the “Taiwan authority,” under the ROC name, has been illegally administering Taiwan.

  Both accounts are wrong. The CCP attempts to use a “succession theory” proves that it is not the owner of Taiwan.

  Prior to these assertions, the CCP had never acknowledged the existence of the ROC. According to its theory, the ROC no longer exists. The CCP felt the need to commemorate this so strongly that it erected a monument in Nanjing with the inscription: “Republic of China, 1912-1945.”

  Further evidence of Beijing’s “ROC demise theory” can be found in its own state practices. On Aug. 17, 1971, during a debate over the representation of China in the UN, the US proposed that the global body recognize the existence of both the ROC and the PRC, which should be reflected in how the UN deals with the matter.

  In response, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a letter dated Aug. 20, 1971, accused the US of attempting to create two Chinas and asserted that Taiwan was an inalienable part of China that had already been returned to the “motherland” after World War II. In asserting its position, the PRC never once mentioned “succession,” and seemingly did not feel the need to resort to that argument to get around the issue that it has never ruled Taiwan.

  The CCP used that “demise theory” for some time. In an April 14, 2021, statement, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said it was “an indisputable historical fact” that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was defeated in the Chinese Civil War “it launched and retreated to Taiwan, thereby losing its status as the legitimate government representing all of China.”

  The core of the CCP’s “demise theory” is the supposed illegality of the ROC, including its occupation of Taiwan. The theory denies the ROC the status of being an entity from which rights are to be succeeded. The new “succession theory” is a U-turn of Beijing’s position. Legal arguments cannot be picked off an a la carte menu to meet political convenience.

  The ROC has not fallen, and is very much alive and transformed. Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) in a speech on July 8 addressed the invalidity of the PRC’s assertions over Taiwan. Despite the CCP’s claims, the 1943 Cairo Declaration did not make dispositions on territory, he said.

  Instead, the ownership of Taiwan belongs to Taiwanese, who, through democratization, reaffirmed the statehood of Taiwan and the “status quo” that the ROC and the PRC are not subordinate to each other. In short, the ROC on Taiwan, being transformed through sovereign acts by Taiwanese, is alive and kicking.

  In its state practice, the PRC has never fully subscribed to the position that it succeeded the previous governments of China. The current assertion of succession flies in the face of its long-standing practice.

  The PRC’s positions on multilateral treaties are recorded in the UN Treaty Collection. In a Sept. 29, 1972, communication, Beijing denied the automatic succession of treaties entered into before the establishment of the government of the PRC on Oct. 1, 1949, and reserved the right to “examine their contents before making a decision in the light of the circumstances as to whether or not they should be recognized.”

  As to treaties signed by the ROC after that date, the PRC declared those null and void, on the grounds that then-president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his associates have no right to represent China.

  Notwithstanding the above, which speaks volumes about Beijing’s rejection to succeed the ROC in treaty relations, the PRC has also never assumed a position to succeed the sovereign debts owed by China. For example, the PRC has not recognized debts from bonds issued in 1912 (the “Gold Loan of 1912”) raised after the fall of Qing Dynasty, even though bills to that effect have been floated in the US Congress.

  From treaties to financial obligations, the PRC’s selective approach toward succession proves that it has never been serious about assuming the role as a successor to the ROC. Why, then, resort to the “succession theory” now?

  It is because the legal basis raised by the PRC to justify its claim on Taiwan is losing ground, and the international community are increasingly releasing themselves from the framework the PRC used to shackle them with in regards to relations with Taiwan.

  The PRC has been working hard to push its “one China principle” on governments. It has succeeded in convincing numerous states to release diplomatic statements endorsing its “one China principle” and pledging support of China in dealing with Taiwan as part of its “internal affairs.”

  However, in the past few years, Chinese economic lures and political pressure are reaching their limits. More governments are adopting official positions or passing parliamentary statements to rid themselves of the PRC’s “one China principle” shackles.

  US policies set a good paradigm. The US has never accepted the PRC’s “one China principle,” but instead asserted its own “one China” policy. They are not the same, and the US decides its relations with Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, the “six assurances,” and other legislation and policies. Time and again through legislation and official statements, the US reaffirms that only the democratically elected government on Taiwan has the capacity to represent Taiwanese in any international venue.

  Like-minded democratic countries follow suit in asserting their sovereign rights in deciding the manner and levels of their dealings with Taiwan, and do not bind themselves to the PRC’s positions. Interference on such matters are increasingly viewed as Chinese coercion.

  Taiwan is too important to be left as an “internal matter” for China. International statements in the past few years testify to the contrary: “Peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait” is now seen as indispensable to security and prosperity for the whole international community, and maintaining the peaceful “status quo” across the Strait must not be unilaterally changed by force or coercion. Taiwan’s security is now an international concern.

  All this shows that the international community has firmly rejected the Chinese doctrine on Taiwan. Watching its old arguments crumble, even after political interference and economic coercion, the PRC has no card left, but the one that it itself has always rejected. The “succession theory” China is now pushing shows how desperate it is to persuade the international community that it “owns” Taiwan. It is a thinly veiled fig leaf to cover its anxiety as it loses ground as more countries view Taiwan’s security as an international concern.

  Raymond Sung is vice president of the Prospect Foundation.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Taiwan firms eye Philippines amid shift to non-China supply chains: CIER

  • 5

    Kinmen probes potential Chinese sex spy