China: Who made whom?

In last week's Yale Herald, Xue-Qui Chiang's article [Reclaiming Hong Kong?, 9/20/96, YH] addressed both the issue of China's impending reclamation of Hong Kong and the eventual resolution of its problems with Taiwan. I agree completely that to acquire either Hong Kong, Taiwan, or both, is politically, strategically, and fiscally unfeasible for the People's Republic of China (PRC). Stifling the booming trade between the states, especially between Taiwan and China, would shock--if not destroy--the Chinese economy. However, Chiang's rationalization of China's relentless desire to reclaim Taiwan and Hong Kong as an effort to "reconcile this century of humiliation" is fundamentally false.

While it is true that the Chinese motivation lies in a need to save face, that innate desire does not belong exclusively to the mainland Chinese. The Chinese people as a whole, not merely the currently ruling Communists, were thoroughly embarrassed by the West in the Opium Wars. It is this lesson from history that drives both an unexplainable pride and a need for strength through unity, preventing China and Taiwan from officially separating. One must remember that China has never been given the opportunity to officially deny Taiwanese independence; Taiwan has never claimed to be a sovereign nation. In fact, China and Taiwan are called their respective names only because more powerful western nations have deemed it so. Officially, Taiwan is the Republic of China (ROC) and China is the People's Republic of China. So there are two Chinas: a situation both sets of people cannot accept. Thus, it is not solely China's need to unite, but the need of the Chinese people--both those in Taiwan and in China--to unite that maintains the stalemate.

Assuming, however, that there is a "century of humiliation" to redress, one must consider who truly has been humiliated. In the article, Chiang stated that "After 1997, Taiwan will be the sole remaining symbol of China's
century of humiliation." I presume that the author alludes to the supposed breaking-away of Taiwan from China following the revolution and founding of the PRC in 1949. Yet, the government located in Taiwan is a continuation of the government that existed in Beijing prior to 1949. The Republic of China, formerly resident on the mainland, merely relocated to a more secure region.

If, perhaps, the Republic of China had gone out of existence in 1949, as the dynastic regime had in 1911 when the Kuomingtang established the Republic of China in its place, then the People's Republic of China would be the rightful heirs to China, its history, and all other trappings. However, despite Western attempts to ignore its existence by officially recognizing the revolutionaries, the ROC continues to thrive. And as the nation of China prior to 1949 still exists today, unless squatter's rights apply, the PRC was and remains the true break-away republic.

Perhaps, then, one might consider rethinking who should be reclaiming Hong Kong and who should be called China. Should the arbitrary decision of a few world superpowers turn a legitimate government into the "sole remaining symbol...of humiliation" overnight? Thus one could propose a more accurate description of the situation: after 1997, China will be the sole remaining symbol of Taiwan's century of humiliation.

--Elbert Lin, ES '99