Is the Republic of China on Taiwan a government in exile?

Question

In reviewing the history of Taiwan beginning in the mid-1940's, many researchers are now claiming that the Japanese surrender ceremonies on Oct. 25, 1945, only marked the beginning of the military occupation of the areas of "Formosa and the Pescadores."

In other words, there was no "Taiwan Retrocession Day." Indeed, none of the Allied countries recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" to China in 1945.

With this analysis firmly in mind, it would then appear that when the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan in mid-Dec. 1949, it became a government in exile.

Furthermore, international law specifies that there are no actions which a government in exile can take to be recognized as the legal government of its current locality of residence.

This would explain why, despite all the democratic advances made by the ROC in Taiwan in the past two decades, it is still shunned by the international community.

Opinions anyone?

Answer 1

According to the historical record, many of the military forces and various high-ranking officials of the Republic of China fled from China in the final months of 1949.

If these ROC personnel had fled to Japan, Korea, or the the Philippines, and continued to conduct their governmental business there, it would be easy to recognize the fact that they had become a government in exile.

However, these ROC personnel fled to Taiwan, which at that time had been under ROC jurisdiction for a number of years. Under such circumstances, does the ROC qualify as a government in exile beginning in late 1949?

In order to examine the status of the Republic of China in Taiwan from the time of late October 1945 up to December 1949, we must first discuss the significance of the surrender of Japanese troops on October 25, 1945.

Under international law, the date of October 25, 1945, merely marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. There was no transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC on that date.

Thus, by relocating its central government to occupied Taiwan in mid-December 1949, the Republic of China has conformed to the definition of "government in exile," which is "A temporary government moved to or formed in a foreign land by exiles who hope to rule when their country is liberated," or "A government established outside of its territorial base."

Hence, as a goverment in exile, the ROC will never be recognized by the international community as the legitimate goverment of Taiwan.

Answer 2

To answerer no. 1 , For Taiwan to qualify as a "renegade provincial government " China (PRC) would need a treaty (such as the San Francisco Peace treaty) which transfers sovereignty to China. The best they have are a couple of notes written on the back of napkin left unsigned.

To answerer no. 2, I think you mean to say the ROC WAS the Republic of China on Taiwan a government in exile, when you say yes, and then suggest this changes in the late 80s, because the ROC renounced Chinese reunification.

However to date no change has been made to the constitution or the name of Taiwan which is still known as the Republic of China. Although the present and democratically elected DPP are currently trying to do just that.

So at what point does the ROC stop becoming a government in exile? As you suggest when they officially renounced Chinese reunification? Or when then government became a democratically elected government (it's hard to see how the local members of the DPP can be called a government in exile). Or when there is constitution and name changes. Or when there is official recognition that the government of Taiwan is a legitimate government and has sovereign rights (which may never happen). I’ll plump for the one where the inmates started running the asylum.

The realities are this. China claims Taiwan to be a province of China, although it has no real grounds for doing so. Yet it also has 1000+ missiles and a threat of invasion should anyone dismiss their claim or doubt they have a legitimate claim. When faced by an armed attacker, people listen, even it’s completely unreasonable.

America, as principle occupying power and liberator of Taiwan who signed the San Francisco Peace treaty with themselves as principle occupying power, yet still never named a recipient can be said to have acquired the territory through conquest. Yet they deny this, and instead have a long term policy that the sovereignty of Taiwan is an issue that needs to be resolved peacefully by both sides of the Taiwan strait with no unilateral changes by either side to the status quo.

To aid Taiwan keep the balance, the US sells arms to Taiwan (if the Taiwanese could agree to buy them) under the terms of the Taiwan relations act.

Taiwan is pressured by the US not to make name changes to the countries name or its constitution or to hold referendums, China threatens war in the case of lets say a Taiwanese declaration of independence.

Yet as a de facto government, they govern Taiwan. Not the US or PRC (who have never done so for a second). Yours is a good question which not only does not have a simple answer but brings up many more questions, some of which I dare say all parties would rather not ask.

Answer 3

Government In Exile

Answer 4

"Is the Republic of China on Taiwan a government in exile?"

That would be a "yes".

"Is the Republic of China on Taiwan a government still in exile?"

That would be a "no".

Since late 80s, ROC renounce Chinese reunification through the means of military. Nowaday, the KMT is trying to tone down the unification languages within it's charter revision.

http://www.kmt.org.tw/EN_category/eng_category4.html

The interesting fact regarding to "sovereignty" of Taiwan that you point out maybe correct. However, that maybe irrelevant at this time.

A "state" is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area. A state is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.

In international law, sovereignty is the legitimate exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.

Interesting things about "sovereignty" of Taiwan: both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China considered themselves sovereign governments over the whole territory of mainland China and Taiwan. Though some foreign governments recognize the Republic of China as the valid state, most now recognize the People's Republic of China. However, de facto, the People's Republic of China exercises sovereign power over mainland China but not Taiwan, while the Republic of China exercises its effective administration only over Taiwan and some outlying islands but not mainland China. Since ambassadors are only exchanged between sovereign high parties, the countries recognizing the People's Republic often entertain de facto but not de jure diplomatic relationships with Taiwan by maintaining 'offices of representation', such as the American Institute in Taiwan, rather than embassies there.

And in your point of view, it is de jure that the ROC may illegally occupied Taiwan. However, it is de facto that the ROC exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over Taiwan.

I know how much all of you like to read about Legal status of Taiwan (most of legal stuff are there):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan

Thereby, in my view, you cannot simply argue regarding to de jure without considering de facto. (Thereby, some had demand popular vote for the recognition of "Taiwan" instead of "ROC" as a sovereign state. By the way, de facto usually resolve the issue. Even if it is illegal occupation of other territory.)

PS
De-facto vs. de-jure
The use of the terms de-facto and de-jure to describe Taiwan's as well as the Republic of China's status as a state is itself a contentious issue. This partially stems from the lack of precedents regarding derecognized, but still constitutionally functioning states. For instance, it has been debated if the Republic of China changed from a de-jure to a de-facto state in 1971 because it lost its UN seat. This lies in the controversy on whether UN membership or recognition by the UN alone rather than the Montevideo Convention can determine if a state "legitimately" or "illegitimately" exists. From the 1990s onwards, media wire services sometimes describe Taiwan as having de-facto independence, whereas the Republic of China has always considered itself as a continuously functioning de-jure state.

Answer 5

The government in Taiwan is a renegade provincial government because it is a part of China but have a separate government.