Page 24 - Rethinking China Policy

Rethinking China Policy

Japanese was no more an alien order than any other number of ethnic groups that have been lumped
together as “Chinese” like the Chings (Manchus are an alliance of northeastern tribes), the Hui (Chinese
Muslims), or Mongols (an alliance of nomadic tribes), etc.

Proclamation of the Republic of China in 1911 did not end the competition for power. The abdicated Emperor
of the Chings, did not formally collapse for good until Emperor Puyi was expelled from the Forbidden city in
1924, that led to him allying with the Japanese. It only ended when Emperor Puyi of the Kingdom of
Manchuko was captured by the Soviets in 1945 and handed over to the Chinese Communist Party after they
won against the ROC.

The framing of Japanese vs. Chinese is a fictional construct, at first of ROC propaganda, and then later CCP
propaganda that have no basis in fact. It was created to present an illusion of a united “Chinese people”
defined by race that in fact, does not exist. The Japanese are just the latest well organized minority group
to attempt to conquer China no different from the Chings, or the Mongols, etc. The only difference is the
Japanese failed spectacularly when they took on the Western powers before the conquest of China
succeeded.

From this historical perspective, it can be seen that the core concern of the PRC with respect to “one China”
policy is the regime’s explicit and public acknowledgement of Beijing’s lack of legitimacy in its own territory
and its uncertain grip on power within territories they claim for China.
A review of the history of Chinese civilization shows an official record where few Dynasties make it past 300
years, with many Dynasties succumbing sooner, often in as short as 50 years. Sinophiles are fond of
bragging that China has a thousand year old civilization yet this is a fictional construct that has awed
foreigners who projected Western notions of continuity of governance onto that history.
Reality is quite different.

When Western scholars speak of a government (e.g. Third Republic of France), it is acknowledged and
assumed that there is continuity of government between prior and successor regimes. Britain, for example,
has been continually ruled by a government traceable to the Norman Conquest with continuity in
administration that is recognizable today. Key administrative systems such as systems of property rights,
currency, debt, etc. are carried over despite regime change. Thus, a British pound note from 1694 remains
legal tender today. To this day, the British Crown honor treaties signed with sovereign native tribes centuries
ago in territories still under their jurisdiction.
Chinese regimes, however, do not share these characteristics.

The PRC does not recognize the debts and other obligations incurred by previous regimes like the ROC or
the Chings, and to date, despite amassing foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion dollars, refused to
settle past obligations incurred by predecessor regimes like ROC and the Ching.

Likewise, the PRC eliminated / confiscated / altered property rights, refused to acknowledge prior treaty
obligations, terming them “unequal treaties”.

A fundamental characteristic of Chinese regimes is their explicit denial of continuity of government and
rejection of the idea of treaty or contractual obligations that bind successor, or for that matter, current
regimes over time.

Contrast this with other regimes that have collapsed but ultimately, accepted their obligations as a successor
regime and settled: Germany, Japan, Russia. West Germany settled their Nazi and prior era debts and
Second Line of Defense

Page 23