Published by: Middle East and Asia Strategic Information Institute
July 24, 2026
Author: Akinobu Kinoshita
Executive Summary
1. The “Legitimacy” of China Is a Complex Issue Extending from Dynastic Succession to the Modern State
Legitimacy in China is not merely a legal concept. It has historically been shaped through the concepts of the “Mandate of Heaven” (Tianming) and “dynastic change” (Yixing Geming), as well as through the institutional, historical, cultural, and civilizational succession of successive dynasties. Against this historical background, this study examines the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) from multiple perspectives, including political, institutional, historical, and cultural dimensions.
2. The Establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and the Relocation of the Republic of China to Taiwan Created a Rivalry over the Legitimacy to Represent China
Following the Chinese Civil War, two political systems came to coexist: the People’s Republic of China on the Chinese mainland and the Republic of China in Taiwan. The PRC has based its legitimacy on the revolution, the establishment of a new state, and effective governance over mainland China. The ROC, meanwhile, has based its legitimacy on its constitutional and institutional continuity as a republican state established in 1912, the continuity of its state institutions, and its effective governance in Taiwan.
3. The Relocation of the Palace Museum Collections to Taiwan Can Be Analyzed as a Symbol of “Historical and Cultural Continuity,” Distinct from the Legal Legitimacy of a State
The Palace Museum collections transported to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949 are generally understood to have been moved primarily to protect cultural treasures from war and political turmoil and to preserve them for future generations. At the same time, as a consequence of this relocation, the National Palace Museum in Taipei came to assume a symbolic role in preserving and inheriting the court culture and cultural heritage of successive Chinese dynasties. This study does not regard this fact as direct proof of the legal legitimacy of the Republic of China. Rather, it positions the collections as an analytical hypothesis for examining historical and cultural continuity.
4. The Palace Museums in Beijing and Taipei Can Be Viewed as Two Cultural Spaces Inheriting Different Aspects of Chinese Civilization
The Palace Museum in Beijing inherits the “political space, architecture, and physical site of dynastic rule” represented by the Forbidden City, which served as the imperial palace of the Ming and Qing dynasties. By contrast, the National Palace Museum in Taipei preserves and inherits the “court culture and intellectual heritage” represented by imperial collections, cultural artifacts, and historical documents transferred to Taiwan. These two forms of inheritance demonstrate that political legitimacy and civilizational or cultural continuity are not necessarily identical.
5. The Taiwan Issue Must Be Examined Separately through International Representation, Effective Governance, Historical and Cultural Continuity, and Taiwanese Social Identity
Following United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971, the international status of the entity representing “China” underwent a major transformation. However, the transfer of international representation did not, in itself, transfer Taiwan’s historical experiences, the cultural value of its artifacts, or its historical and cultural continuity. This study proposes that the Taiwan issue should not be viewed simply as a territorial or security issue, but rather as a complex issue at the intersection of international representation, effective governance, historical and cultural continuity, and political identity.
Keywords
- Treasures of the National Palace Museum
- Legitimacy of China
- Dynastic Succession
- Relocation of Palace Museum Collections to Taiwan
- Legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Chinese Dynasties and the Concept of “Legitimacy”
1-1 Introduction
1-2 Chinese Dynasties and Dynastic Change
1-3 Dynastic Succession and the Legitimacy of the State
1-4 The Palace Museum and the Symbolism of Dynastic Rule
1-5 Analytical Perspectives of This Report
Chapter 2 The Chinese Revolution and the First and Second United Fronts
— The Historical Transformation from the Collapse of the Qing Dynasty to the Nationalist-Communist Conflict —
2-1 The Late Qing Dynasty and the Crisis of Modern China
2-2 Sun Yat-sen and the Xinhai Revolution
2-3 Japan and the Chinese Revolution
2-4 The First United Front between the Nationalists and Communists
2-5 The Rise of Chiang Kai-shek and the Shanghai Coup
2-6 The Xi’an Incident and the Second United Front
2-7 The Soong Sisters and the Chinese Revolution
2-8 The Historical Transformation Brought about by the Nationalist-Communist Cooperation
Chapter 3 The Chinese Civil War and the Relocation of Palace Museum Collections to Taiwan
— An Examination of the Inheritance of Chinese Civilization and Dynastic Legitimacy —
3-1 The End of World War II and the Resumption of the Chinese Civil War
3-2 The Relocation of the Chiang Kai-shek Government to Taiwan
3-3 The Relocation of the Palace Museum Collections
3-4 The Historical Explanation of Cultural Heritage Protection
3-5 Palace Museum Collections and Dynastic Legitimacy
— An Analytical Hypothesis of This Study —
3-6 The Palace Museums in Beijing and Taipei
3-7 The Position of the National Palace Museum in Taiwan
3-8 Palace Museum Collections and the Question of the “Successor to Chinese Civilization”
Chapter 4 The Legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China
4-1 The Two Chinas after 1949
4-2 The Legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China
4-3 The Legitimacy of the Republic of China
4-4 The Legitimacy of “Constitutional Continuity” and “Revolution”
4-5 Effective Governance and the Legitimacy of the State
4-6 Historical and Cultural Continuity and Political Legitimacy
4-7 A Comparative Analysis of the “Successor to Chinese Civilization”
Chapter 5 United Nations Representation and “One China”
— The Transformation of Legitimacy in the International Community —
5-1 The Representation of the Republic of China in the United Nations
5-2 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971
5-3 The Transfer of China’s Representation to the People’s Republic of China
5-4 International Perceptions of the “One China” Principle
5-5 International Representation and Historical and Cultural Continuity
5-6 The Multilayered Structure of Legitimacy in the International Community
Chapter 6 The Formation of Taiwanese Society and Identity
— Democratization and the Emergence of a “Taiwanese” Identity —
6-1 The Historical Background of Taiwanese Society
6-2 Taiwanese Society after 1949
6-3 The Social Structure Surrounding Mainlanders and Native Taiwanese
6-4 Democratization and Changes in Political Identity
6-5 From “Chinese” to “Taiwanese”
6-6 Taiwanese Identity and the Cultural Inheritance of Chinese Civilization
6-7 The Significance of Palace Museum Collections in Taiwanese Society
Chapter 7 Contemporary China and the Taiwan Issue
— The Intersection of Dynastic Succession, Civilization, and Geopolitics —
7-1 China in the 21st Century and the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation”
7-2 National Integration and Historical Perceptions of the People’s Republic of China
7-3 Democracy and Effective Governance in Taiwan
7-4 International Representation, Effective Governance, and Cultural Continuity
7-5 The Question of “Who Represents China?”
7-6 The Question of “Who Inherits Chinese Civilization?”
7-7 “Civilizational Inheritance” and “State Legitimacy”
Final Chapter: Conclusion
The Legitimacy of China Viewed through the Treasures of the National Palace Museum
The Historical Continuity from Dynastic Succession to the Contemporary Taiwan Issue
The Separation of International Representation from Historical and Cultural Continuity
Future Research Issues Concerning the Inheritance of Chinese Civilization
Footnotes
References
Reference Materials
List of Figures and Tables
Chapter 1 Chinese Dynasties and the Concept of “Legitimacy”
1-1 Introduction
The Taiwan issue is generally discussed as a territorial dispute, a security issue, or as part of the strategic competition between the United States and China. Behind this contemporary framework, however, lies a distinctive political philosophy that has developed in China over more than two thousand years, as well as historical concepts concerning dynastic succession.
In the history of successive Chinese dynasties, the replacement of one ruler by another was not understood simply as a change of government. The establishment of a new dynasty in place of the previous dynasty was explained as the emergence of a new ruler who had received the “Mandate of Heaven” to govern the realm. Within this intellectual framework, the concept of “dynastic change” (Yixing Geming) developed as one of the theoretical explanations for the transfer of political authority. This political philosophy occupies an important position in understanding the concept of political legitimacy in China.¹
Successive dynasties emphasized a wide range of symbols to demonstrate that they were the legitimate rulers of China, including the emperor, imperial palaces, the imperial seal, ancestral temples, official histories, state rituals, and cultural treasures transmitted through the imperial court. These were not merely instruments of governance. Rather, they served to make visible the continuity of dynastic succession and the continuity of the national political order.²
Against this historical background, the issue surrounding China and Taiwan since 1949 can be understood not simply as a contemporary territorial dispute, but as a complex issue in which two distinct questions intersect: “Who represents China?” and “Who is the historical successor to Chinese civilization?”
In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China on the Chinese mainland, while the government of the Republic of China, which had previously governed mainland China, relocated to Taiwan. As a result, a situation emerged in which two political systems each claimed legitimacy as the representative of China on the basis of different foundations.
The People’s Republic of China positioned its legitimacy on the grounds that it was a new state established through revolution and that it had built a new state based on the support of the people. The Republic of China, by contrast, asserted its historical continuity on the basis of its constitutional and institutional continuity as a republican state established in 1912.³
This report aims to reconsider this conflict not simply as an issue of contemporary politics, but from the long-term perspective of the succession of “legitimacy” in the history of Chinese dynasties.
In particular, this study focuses on the important collections of the Palace Museum that were transferred to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949. These cultural treasures convey to the present day the memory of court culture and civilization formed throughout China’s long history. The history of their relocation and preservation can therefore be examined not only from the perspective of cultural heritage protection, but also from the perspective of the historical inheritance of Chinese civilization.⁴
However, this study does not assume that the transfer of the Palace Museum collections to Taiwan, in itself, directly proves the legal legitimacy of the Republic of China. The inheritance of cultural heritage and the legal legitimacy of a state are fundamentally distinct concepts and cannot be treated as identical.
Accordingly, this study positions the “inheritance of the Palace Museum collections” not as a factor that directly determines the legal legitimacy of a state, but as an analytical perspective through which to examine historical and cultural legitimacy.
1-2 Chinese Dynasties and Dynastic Change
Since ancient times, the concept of the “Mandate of Heaven” (Tianming) has developed as one of the fundamental principles of state governance in China.
The “Mandate of Heaven” refers to the idea that Heaven grants a particular ruler the right to govern the realm. However, this mandate was not considered permanent. If a ruler lost virtue and became incapable of governing the people properly, it was believed that the Mandate of Heaven could be transferred to another ruler.
This concept provided a theoretical framework for explaining dynastic succession not simply as the seizure of political power through military force, but as the result of the previous dynasty losing the Mandate of Heaven and a new dynasty receiving a new mandate. The political concept later known as “dynastic change” (Yixing Geming) is closely associated with the justification of such dynastic transitions.⁵
Classical texts such as the Book of Documents (Shangshu) and the Mencius present ideas linking the virtue of rulers with political legitimacy. In particular, the political philosophy of Mencius occupies an important position in explaining, at the level of political thought, how a ruler who practices tyranny may lose the Mandate of Heaven and how a new form of rule may legitimately emerge in his place.⁶
From this perspective, a dynastic transition was not simply a matter of one political regime replacing another. Rather, it was understood as an event in which the ruler of the realm changed and the political order itself was reconstructed.
Throughout Chinese history, from the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties through the Qin and Han, the Wei and Jin periods and the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the Sui and Tang, and the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, each new dynasty sought to demonstrate that it was the legitimate successor to Chinese civilization and the national political order.
In particular, the Yuan Dynasty was established by a ruling house with its origins in the Mongol Empire, while the Qing Dynasty was founded by the Manchu people. Nevertheless, both dynasties constructed their legitimacy as Chinese dynasties by adopting the Chinese imperial system, Confucian principles of governance, administrative institutions, and other elements of the established political and cultural order.
This history demonstrates that legitimacy in China has not been determined simply by ethnic origins. Rather, it has been constituted by multiple elements, including governing principles, institutions, culture, and historical continuity.⁷
Therefore, when considering “legitimacy” in Chinese history, it is necessary to examine not only the question of “who ruled,” but also the question of “who was recognized as having inherited Chinese civilization and the national political order.”
In this study, “legitimacy” is examined from multiple dimensions:
- Political governance
- Institutional continuity
- Historical continuity
- Cultural continuity
Applying this perspective to contemporary cross-Strait relations makes it possible to examine the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China since 1949 not simply as a conflict between two political systems, but also as competing claims concerning the inheritance of the historical and civilizational community known as “China.”
At the same time, it is important not to equate the dynastic transitions of ancient and medieval China with the political conflicts between modern nation-states that emerged from the twentieth century onward.
The People’s Republic of China was established as a socialist state through a modern revolution, while the Republic of China was established as a modern republican state. The two cannot simply be compared directly with the dynasties of earlier periods.
In this study, the concept of “dynastic succession” is used strictly as an analytical framework for examining contemporary issues from the perspectives of historical symbolism, political culture, and civilizational continuity.
1-3 Dynastic Succession and the Legitimacy of the State
Throughout Chinese history, when a new dynasty was established, it needed not only to demonstrate its differences from the preceding dynasty but also to establish itself as the legitimate successor to Chinese civilization.
For this reason, the imperial system, palaces, state rituals, historical compilation, ancestral temples, and imperial seals functioned not merely as institutional or material entities, but also as symbols of dynastic legitimacy.
The compilation of official histories by successive dynasties is one example. When a new dynasty compiled the history of its predecessor, it not only positioned the previous dynasty within the historical narrative but also established itself as the legitimate successor to that history.
In this sense, “inheriting history” and “asserting legitimacy” were closely interconnected in Chinese history.⁸
There was a recognition that even when dynasties changed, the broader civilizational and historical framework known as “China” continued. Therefore, a new dynasty did not simply construct a “new state” from scratch. Instead, it legitimized its rule by inheriting institutions, culture, history, rituals, and other elements from previous dynasties.
From this perspective, the cultural treasures housed in the Palace Museum are not merely a collection of works of art.
They materially preserve the long history of Chinese civilization, including the court culture, political institutions, philosophical thought, religion, art, and diplomacy of successive emperors.
Accordingly, the question of who preserves, manages, and displays the Palace Museum collections can extend beyond the realm of cultural heritage administration and become a symbolic question concerning who carries responsibility for the historical inheritance of Chinese civilization.
However, here too, “cultural heritage succession” must be distinguished from the “legal legitimacy of a state.”
The possession of cultural heritage alone does not automatically establish the legitimacy of a state. Since the modern era, state legitimacy has been shaped by a variety of factors, including constitutions, international law, international recognition, effective governance, and the will of the people.
Taking this distinction into account, this study does not treat the “inheritance of the Palace Museum collections” as a direct basis for legal legitimacy. Instead, it treats it as a supplementary analytical axis for examining historical and cultural legitimacy.
1-4 The Palace Museum and the Symbolism of Dynastic Rule
The Palace Museum, known historically as the Forbidden City, was the imperial palace of the Ming and Qing dynasties and served as the center of Chinese political power for approximately five hundred years.
Within the palace complex, vast collections of cultural treasures were preserved, including paintings and calligraphy, bronzeware, ceramics, jade objects, ritual vessels, and other artifacts collected by successive emperors. These were not merely works of art; they also represented imperial authority and dynastic culture.
Following the collapse of the Qing Dynasty as a result of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, cultural treasures originating from the imperial court continued to be treated as important historical and cultural assets. In 1925, the Palace Museum was established. Thus, the Palace Museum gradually transformed from a political space of dynastic rule into an institution dedicated to the preservation, study, and exhibition of cultural heritage in the modern state.⁹
This transformation is significant.
Even after the Qing Dynasty as a political institution disappeared, the cultural treasures preserved in the Palace Museum did not disappear. Although the political system changed, the cultural heritage continued to be inherited as part of China’s historical legacy.
In other words, although the political institution of the dynasty came to an end, the cultural heritage left by that dynasty was inherited by subsequent states. In this sense, the Palace Museum came to symbolize both the “end of dynastic rule” and the “continuity of civilization.”
Between 1948 and 1949, as the military situation in the Chinese Civil War deteriorated, the Nationalist government transferred important Palace Museum collections to Taiwan. This transfer is generally explained as a measure taken to protect valuable cultural treasures from the devastation of war.¹⁰
This study, however, also examines the possibility that, in addition to the practical objective of protecting cultural heritage, the transfer may have acquired symbolic significance in terms of the historical continuity of Chinese civilization. This point is not presented as an established historical fact, but rather as an analytical hypothesis of this study.
The policy decisions at the time may have been influenced by multiple factors, including the protection of cultural treasures from warfare, the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations, and administrative considerations.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to interpret the transfer of the Palace Museum collections to Taiwan as having had the sole purpose of preserving the legitimacy of the Republic of China.
Rather, this study proposes an analysis of the possibility that the transfer and preservation of the Palace Museum collections ultimately came to possess symbolic significance in relation to the historical and cultural inheritance of Chinese civilization.
1-5 Analytical Perspectives of This Report
This report proceeds from three principal analytical perspectives.
The first is the formation and transmission of “legitimacy” in the history of Chinese dynasties.
The second is the historical process through which, following the Xinhai Revolution, the First and Second United Fronts, and the Chinese Civil War, two political systems—the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China—came to coexist.
The third concerns the possible significance of the treasures of the Palace Museum not merely as cultural artifacts, but also as political and historical assets symbolizing the inheritance of Chinese civilization.¹¹
This report presents the third perspective as an analytical hypothesis. Specifically, it proposes the hypothesis that the transfer of the Palace Museum collections to Taiwan may have possessed significance as a symbol of the historical and cultural continuity extending from the Chinese dynasties, in addition to its practical purpose of protecting cultural heritage.
However, this hypothesis does not explain all of the motivations behind the transfer of the Palace Museum collections to Taiwan.
Nor does it mean that the inheritance of the Palace Museum collections directly proves the legal legitimacy of the Republic of China.
What is important in this study is to distinguish between the question of “who inherited the Palace Museum collections” and the question of “who legally represents the state of China.”
On this basis, the study examines how these two issues have historically, culturally, and politically been related to one another.
From this analytical framework, the Palace Museum in Beijing and the National Palace Museum in Taipei should not simply be understood as a binary choice concerning “which is the legitimate Palace Museum.”
Rather, they can be compared as two distinct forms of inheritance:
The Palace Museum in Beijing
= Inheritance of the political space, architecture, and physical site of dynastic rule
The National Palace Museum in Taipei
= Inheritance of imperial court collections, cultural treasures, and intellectual heritage
This perspective makes it possible to distinguish between “inheriting the Palace Museum collections” and “possessing the legal legitimacy of the state of China,” while simultaneously examining the historical relationship between the two.¹²
Summary of Chapter 1
In Chinese political culture, “legitimacy” is not merely a legal concept. It has been formed within a long historical tradition encompassing the Mandate of Heaven, dynastic change, and dynastic succession.
Successive dynasties demonstrated their status as legitimate successors to Chinese civilization and national governance through emperors, palaces, imperial seals, official histories, rituals, and cultural treasures.
The cultural treasures housed in the Palace Museum can likewise be regarded as symbolic cultural assets that make visible this long historical continuity.
Since 1949, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China have each asserted state legitimacy on different foundations. However, the political legitimacy of the two cannot be determined solely by reference to the inheritance of the Palace Museum collections.
This study positions the inheritance of the Palace Museum collections as an analytical perspective for examining a form of “historical and cultural legitimacy” distinct from legal legitimacy.
Against this historical background, the next chapter traces the political transformations from the Xinhai Revolution through the First and Second United Fronts and ultimately to the Chinese Civil War, examining how the conflict over the question of a “legitimate China” came to take shape.
Understanding this historical process provides a foundation for interpreting the contemporary Taiwan issue not simply as a territorial or security problem, but as a complex issue at the intersection of history, civilization, the state, and the international order.
Footnotes to Chapter 1
1 See, among others, the “Mu Shi” chapter of the Book of Documents (Shangshu) and the “Liang Hui Wang, Part II” chapter of the Mencius. For the concepts of the Mandate of Heaven and dynastic change, see studies on ancient Chinese political thought.
2 For the symbolism of emperors, palaces, imperial seals, ancestral temples, official histories, and rituals in successive Chinese dynasties, see historical sources including the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji), the Book of Han (Hanshu), and the Zizhi Tongjian.
3 For the establishment of the People’s Republic of China and the relocation of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history. In this report, the term “legitimacy” is used as a multidimensional concept encompassing legal legitimacy, effective governance, historical continuity, international recognition, and related factors.
4 See official materials published by the Palace Museum in Beijing and the National Palace Museum in Taipei.
5 See the Book of Documents (Shangshu) and the Mencius. The term “dynastic change” (Yixing Geming) is understood here as a concept developed in the history of later political thought.
6 See, among others, the “Liang Hui Wang, Part II” chapter of the Mencius.
7 For the governing institutions of the Yuan and Qing dynasties and their legitimacy as Chinese dynasties, see studies of Chinese history and the history of Chinese political thought.
8 For the relationship between the compilation of official histories by successive dynasties and political legitimacy, see studies in Chinese historiography and the history of Chinese political thought.
9 See official materials published by the Palace Museum in Beijing.
10 See official materials published by the National Palace Museum in Taipei and relevant research materials concerning the Palace Museum collections.
11 This point constitutes an analytical hypothesis of this study. Multiple factors may have influenced the transfer of the Palace Museum collections to Taiwan, including the protection of cultural heritage, the avoidance of wartime destruction, and the preservation and transmission of cultural heritage for future generations.
12 The distinction that “the Palace Museum in Beijing = inheritance of the political space, architecture, and physical site of dynastic rule” and “the National Palace Museum in Taipei = inheritance of imperial court collections, cultural treasures, and intellectual heritage” constitutes an analytical framework developed in this study. The inheritance of cultural treasures and the legal legitimacy of a state are conceptually distinct.
Chapter 2 The Chinese Revolution and the Nationalist-Communist United Fronts
— The Historical Transformation from the Collapse of the Qing Dynasty to the Nationalist-Communist Conflict —
2-1 The Late Qing Dynasty and the Crisis of Modern China
The latter half of the nineteenth century was a period in which the governing system of the Qing Dynasty underwent profound instability.
The Opium War of 1840–1842 marked a turning point after which the Western powers intensified their expansion into China. Through a series of unequal treaties, the Qing government was forced to accept significant restrictions on its sovereignty in areas including territory, diplomacy, and customs.¹³
Furthermore, a succession of internal and external crises occurred from the latter half of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century, including the Second Opium War, the Taiping Rebellion, the First Sino-Japanese War, and the Boxer Uprising. These circumstances intensified criticism of the Qing government’s ability to rule and contributed to the expansion of movements calling for political and institutional reform in Chinese society.¹⁴
The Qing Dynasty attempted to modernize through initiatives such as the Self-Strengthening Movement and the Hundred Days’ Reform. However, there were limits to rebuilding the state while maintaining the existing political system itself.
As a result, among Chinese intellectuals and revolutionaries, the idea of “reforming China while preserving the dynasty” gradually gave way to a stronger revolutionary ideology advocating the “abolition of the dynasty itself and the construction of a new state.”
It was within this historical context that Sun Yat-sen emerged as a leading figure in the Chinese revolutionary movement.
The nature of China’s political challenge during this period consequently underwent a fundamental transformation—from the question of “how to reform the Qing Dynasty” to the question of “who should build a new China in place of the Qing Dynasty, and on the basis of what political principles.”
This transformation is essential to understanding the subsequent Xinhai Revolution, the establishment of the Republic of China, and ultimately the conflict between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
2-2 Sun Yat-sen and the Xinhai Revolution
Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925) was born in Xiangshan County, Guangdong Province, in what is now Zhongshan City. He received part of his education overseas from an early age, where he was exposed to Western political thought and modern systems of government.
After returning to China, he worked as a physician while devoting himself to a revolutionary movement aimed at overthrowing the Qing government and establishing a new state.¹⁵
Sun Yat-sen advocated the Three Principles of the People (Sanmin Zhuyi), centered on “nationalism,” “democracy,” and “people’s livelihood,” and proposed transforming China into a modern republican state.
The Three Principles consisted of nationalism, the principle of civil rights, and the principle of people’s livelihood. They developed as a political philosophy aimed at ending Qing rule, establishing a political system based on popular sovereignty, and improving the lives of the Chinese people.¹⁶
This ideology was historically significant in China at the time as one of the political visions seeking to transform the state from a traditional dynastic system into a modern republic.
On October 10, 1911, an uprising in Wuchang triggered a revolutionary movement that spread rapidly throughout the country, leading to the swift collapse of the Qing political order.
In 1912, the Xuantong Emperor, the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty, abdicated, bringing approximately 260 years of Qing rule to an end. The Republic of China was subsequently established as the first republican state in Chinese history.¹⁷
However, the establishment of the new state did not immediately bring political stability to China.
Following the revolution, the central government failed to establish sufficient governing authority, while warlord forces rose to prominence throughout various regions. Political divisions between the central government and local authorities continued, giving rise to a new question: “How could China be unified as a republican state?” This constituted one of the major contradictions facing post-Xinhai Revolution China.¹⁸
In other words, although the Qing Dynasty had been overthrown and a republican state established, an effective system capable of governing the new state and politically integrating the whole of China had not yet been fully established.
Thus, while the Xinhai Revolution represented a major historical transformation in terms of the “end of dynastic rule,” it did not completely resolve the challenge of “unifying China and building a stable state.”
The unresolved problem of national unification subsequently became one of the factors underlying the cooperation and conflict between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party.
2-3 Japan and the Chinese Revolution
Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary activities cannot be discussed without considering his relationship with Japan.
During the course of his revolutionary activities, Sun Yat-sen regarded Japan as one of his important bases of operation. Chinese revolutionaries and political exiles gathered in cities such as Tokyo and Yokohama. At the same time, Japan was home to politicians, intellectuals, and businessmen who supported political reform and revolution in China and assisted the revolutionary movement through financial support and the provision of operational bases.¹⁹
Among the most prominent figures were Miyazaki Toten, Toyama Mitsuru, and Inukai Tsuyoshi.
Miyazaki Toten maintained close relations with Sun Yat-sen and is known as one of the Japanese supporters of the Chinese Revolution. Toyama Mitsuru also maintained connections with Chinese revolutionaries, while Inukai Tsuyoshi is known as a Japanese politician who supported Sun Yat-sen.²⁰
However, support for the Chinese Revolution in Japan at the time did not arise from a single shared motivation.
There were diverse motivations, including support for the modernization and national independence of Asian peoples, expectations for China’s modernization, opposition to the southward expansion of the Russian Empire, as well as positions emphasizing Japan’s own security and diplomatic interests.
Therefore, in understanding the relationship between Sun Yat-sen and Japan, it is important not to assume that Japanese society as a whole consistently supported the Chinese Revolution. Rather, Sun’s revolutionary movement received support within the context of the diverse political and intellectual positions that existed in Japan at the time.
The relationship between Sun Yat-sen and Japan also illustrates how multiple political currents—including state-building, nationalism, revolution, and imperialism—intersected in modern East Asia.
2-4 The First United Front between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party
Even after the establishment of the Republic of China, warlord forces retained strong influence in various parts of the country, making national unification difficult to achieve.
Sun Yat-sen believed that completing the revolution and unifying China required the strengthening of both political organization and military power. In this process, he adopted a policy of receiving support from the Soviet Union and undertook organizational reforms within the Kuomintang.
In 1924, Sun Yat-sen adopted the policy of “allying with the Soviet Union, cooperating with the Communists, and assisting workers and peasants,” leading to the establishment of the First United Front between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party.²¹
Under this system of cooperation, members of the Chinese Communist Party were permitted to join the Kuomintang as individuals, and the two parties cooperated in seeking to defeat the warlords and unify China.
Subsequently, the Northern Expedition was launched under the leadership of the Kuomintang with the objective of defeating the warlords and achieving national unification.
The Northern Expedition was a major military campaign aimed at achieving political unification in China and provided an opportunity for the Kuomintang to expand its political influence over major regions of the country.²²
However, the First United Front did not mean that the Kuomintang and the Communist Party shared the same political objectives in every respect.
Although the two parties cooperated toward the immediate goal of unifying China, they held fundamentally different visions concerning the future of the state, the political system, and socioeconomic policy.
These ideological differences gradually came to the surface following the death of Sun Yat-sen.
2-5 The Rise of Chiang Kai-shek and the Shanghai Coup
When Sun Yat-sen died of illness in 1925, a struggle for leadership within the Kuomintang intensified.
Among the emerging leaders was Chiang Kai-shek, who rose to prominence as a military commander.
As Chiang strengthened his military and political influence within the Kuomintang during the Northern Expedition, he also became increasingly wary of the expanding influence of the Chinese Communist Party.
In April 1927, forces aligned with Chiang Kai-shek launched a violent crackdown in Shanghai against Communist Party members and individuals associated with the labor movement. The incident, commonly referred to as the “Shanghai Coup” or the “Shanghai Massacre,” effectively brought the First United Front to an end.²³
China subsequently entered an era of open conflict between the Kuomintang and Communist forces.
The Kuomintang established a new government centered in Nanjing and sought to promote national unification and state-building.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party faced increasing restrictions on its activities in urban areas and shifted its revolutionary strategy toward the countryside.
During this process, Mao Zedong strengthened a revolutionary strategy based on the peasantry, and the Communist Party expanded armed struggle and political organization in rural areas.²⁴
The conflict between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party that began during this period continued through the subsequent Sino-Japanese War and ultimately led to the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and the relocation of the Republic of China government to Taiwan.
In this sense, the collapse of the First United Front in 1927 became a major turning point in the political history of modern China.
2-6 The Xi’an Incident and the Second United Front
During the 1930s, the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party continued.
At the same time, following the Manchurian Incident of 1931, Japan expanded its military presence in China, particularly in northeastern China. Although the Japanese military threat was becoming increasingly serious, Chiang Kai-shek initially continued to prioritize the suppression of Communist forces.²⁵
Zhang Xueliang and other commanders of the Northeastern Army opposed this policy and, in December 1936, detained Chiang Kai-shek in Xi’an. This became known as the “Xi’an Incident.”
In an effort to resolve the crisis, Zhou Enlai and other representatives of the Chinese Communist Party participated in negotiations. Ultimately, Chiang Kai-shek shifted toward accepting a suspension of the civil war and joint resistance against Japan.²⁶
After the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 1937 led to the escalation of the Sino-Japanese War into full-scale conflict, the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party formed the Second United Front and engaged in joint resistance against the Japanese military.²⁷
The Second United Front made it possible for the Kuomintang and the Communist Party to cooperate once again. However, their fundamental political conflict was not resolved.
Rather, during the Sino-Japanese War, both the Kuomintang and the Communist Party expanded their respective political and military bases while preparing for the struggle for political dominance after the war.
Therefore, the Second United Front should be understood not as a permanent political reconciliation between the two parties, but as a temporary system of cooperation established to confront a common external enemy—Japan.
This structure provided the background for the renewed escalation of the Chinese Civil War following Japan’s defeat in 1945.
2-7 The Soong Sisters and the Chinese Revolution
The “Soong Sisters” represent one of the most symbolic families in the political history of modern China.
The eldest sister, Soong Ai-ling, married the businessman and politician H. H. Kung and became associated with the financial and economic policies of the Nationalist government.
The second sister, Soong Ching-ling, inherited the revolutionary ideals of Sun Yat-sen as his wife. Following Sun’s death, she aligned herself with the left wing of the Kuomintang and later remained in mainland China after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. In the PRC, she held senior positions, including Vice President of the state.
The youngest sister, Soong Mei-ling, married Chiang Kai-shek and played an important role in the foreign relations of the Nationalist government, particularly in relations with the United States. During World War II, she visited the United States and addressed the U.S. Congress, appealing for international support for China.²⁸
The three sisters followed different political paths and led very different lives.
The eldest was connected to the economic and financial foundations of the Nationalist government; the second inherited Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary ideals and ultimately participated in the political system of the People’s Republic of China; and the youngest supported the international position of the Republic of China government alongside Chiang Kai-shek.
The lives of the three sisters symbolize the fact that the Chinese Revolution was not simply the history of a single political force, but a period in which family, politics, revolution, diplomacy, and international relations intersected in complex ways.
The existence of the Soong Sisters also illustrates that the Chinese Revolution and the Nationalist-Communist conflict were not merely domestic political struggles, but broader political competitions involving relations with the international community.²⁹
2-8 The Historical Transformation Brought about by the Nationalist-Communist United Fronts
The First and Second United Fronts were major turning points in modern Chinese history.
The First United Front played a certain role in defeating the warlords and advancing political unification in China. However, its collapse produced a long-term confrontation between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party and further deepened China’s political divisions.
The Second United Front enabled the two parties to engage in joint resistance against the Japanese military. However, following Japan’s defeat and the disappearance of their common enemy, the conflict between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party once again escalated into full-scale civil war.
From 1945 onward, the Chinese Civil War intensified, ultimately resulting in the establishment of the People’s Republic of China on the Chinese mainland and the relocation of the Republic of China government to Taiwan.³⁰
Between 1948 and 1949, the Liaoshen Campaign, Huaihai Campaign, and Pingjin Campaign were fought, decisively determining the outcome of the Chinese Civil War. In October 1949, the establishment of the People’s Republic of China was formally proclaimed, after which the government of the Republic of China relocated to Taiwan.³¹ ³²
Looking back at this sequence of historical events, it becomes clear that although the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 brought the dynastic rule of the Qing Dynasty to an end, it did not resolve the question of “who represents China.”
Following the collapse of the Qing Dynasty, China transitioned to a republican state. However, through the subsequent era of warlord rule, the conflict between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, and the Chinese Civil War, competition over which government should represent China continued.
In 1949, this competition entered a new stage in the form of the coexistence of two political systems: the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China.
This study positions this process not merely as a history of revolution or civil war, but as part of a broader succession problem concerning “the legitimacy of China.”³³
However, “dynastic succession” and “state legitimacy” are not identical concepts.
The transition from the Qing Dynasty to the Republic of China represented an institutional transformation from a dynastic state to a republican state. The establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, in turn, represented a transition to a new state system established through revolution.
Therefore, the dynastic transitions of ancient China cannot be directly equated with cross-Strait relations since 1949.
What this study emphasizes is that even as political systems changed, competition over the “legitimacy to represent China” continued, and that this competition involved not only political and military factors but also historical perceptions and the inheritance of cultural heritage.³⁴
In this sense, the history from the Xinhai Revolution through the United Fronts and the Chinese Civil War provides an essential foundation for understanding the transfer of the Palace Museum collections to Taiwan, which will be examined in the following chapter.
Summary of Chapter 2
Following the collapse of the Qing Dynasty, China embarked on a revolutionary process aimed at establishing a republican state. However, political conflicts over national unification continued, and the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party repeatedly alternated between cooperation and confrontation.
The First United Front played an important role in advancing the Northern Expedition and the effort to unify China. However, the collapse of the First United Front in 1927 led the two parties into full-scale conflict.
Subsequently, against the background of the intensification of the Sino-Japanese War, the Second United Front was established. Following Japan’s defeat, however, the Chinese Civil War once again intensified.
As a result, the People’s Republic of China was established on the Chinese mainland in 1949, while the government of the Republic of China relocated to Taiwan.
This historical process encompasses the transformation from the Qing Dynasty to a republican state, the competition between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party over national unification, and ultimately the establishment of two political systems: the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China.
This study examines this historical process in relation to the concept of “legitimacy” that has existed since the history of the Chinese dynasties.
However, political legitimacy in the modern nation-state is not identical to the concepts of the “Mandate of Heaven” or “dynastic change” associated with dynastic transitions in ancient and medieval China.
The perspective of “dynastic succession” adopted in this study does not imply the direct institutional succession of political systems. Rather, it serves as an analytical framework for examining how historical symbols, civilization, cultural heritage, and collective national memory are inherited and transmitted across political transformations.
From this perspective, the following chapter examines the Chinese Civil War that resumed after Japan’s defeat in 1945 and the transfer of the Palace Museum collections to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949.
Footnotes to Chapter 2
13 For the Opium Wars and China’s foreign relations during the latter half of the nineteenth century, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history. The present manuscript dates the First Opium War to 1840–1842.
14 For the Second Opium War, the Taiping Rebellion, the First Sino-Japanese War, and the Boxer Uprising, see standard works on modern and contemporary Chinese history.
15 For Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary activities and the Three Principles of the People, see Sun Yat-sen, The Three Principles of the People (Sanmin Zhuyi), and studies of modern Chinese history.
16 Sun Yat-sen’s Three Principles of the People are based on the fundamental concepts of “nationalism, democracy, and people’s livelihood.” For the specific content of the Three Principles, see Sun Yat-sen, The Three Principles of the People.
17 For the Wuchang Uprising of 1911, the abdication of the Qing Dynasty in 1912, and the establishment of the Republic of China, see primary historical sources and standard scholarly works on modern Chinese history.
18 For the warlord era and the problem of national unification following the Xinhai Revolution, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history.
19 For the relationship between Sun Yat-sen and Japan, see records of Sun Yat-sen’s stays in Japan and studies concerning the Chinese Revolution and Sino-Japanese relations.
20 For the relationship between Miyazaki Toten, Toyama Mitsuru, Inukai Tsuyoshi, and Sun Yat-sen and the Chinese Revolution, see studies of the history of Sino-Japanese relations and the Chinese Revolution.
21 For the First United Front of 1924 and the policy of “allying with the Soviet Union, cooperating with the Communists, and assisting workers and peasants,” see studies of Sun Yat-sen’s political activities and the Nationalist-Communist United Front.
22 For the Northern Expedition and the process of national unification under the Kuomintang, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history.
23 For the intensification of the Nationalist-Communist conflict in Shanghai in 1927 and the collapse of the First United Front, see studies of the history of the Chinese Revolution and Nationalist-Communist relations.
24 For the Chinese Communist Party’s shift toward a rural revolutionary strategy after 1927 and the political rise of Mao Zedong, see Mao Zedong, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, and studies of the history of the Chinese Revolution.
25 For Sino-Japanese relations following the Manchurian Incident and the Chinese Civil War during the 1930s, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history and the history of the Sino-Japanese War.
26 For the Xi’an Incident of 1936, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history.
27 For the Second United Front and the Sino-Japanese War, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history and the history of the Sino-Japanese War.
28 For Soong Ai-ling, Soong Ching-ling, Soong Mei-ling, and the relationship between the Soong family and modern Chinese politics, see studies of modern Chinese political history and the Soong Sisters.
29 For Soong Mei-ling’s 1943 address to the U.S. Congress and her diplomacy toward the United States, see records of the U.S. Congress and studies of the history of modern Chinese diplomacy.
30 For the resumption of the Chinese Civil War following Japan’s defeat in 1945, see studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history.
31 For the Liaoshen Campaign, Huaihai Campaign, and Pingjin Campaign of 1948–1949 and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, see studies of the history of the Chinese Civil War.
32 For the relocation of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan in 1949, see materials relating to the government of the Republic of China and studies of modern and contemporary Taiwanese history.
33 The positioning adopted in this chapter—that the process from the Nationalist-Communist United Fronts through the Chinese Civil War and ultimately to the coexistence of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China should be understood as part of a succession problem concerning “the legitimacy of China”—constitutes the analytical framework of this study.
34 This chapter does not equate “dynastic succession” in ancient and medieval China with “state legitimacy” in the modern nation-state. The relationship between the two will be examined in subsequent chapters from the perspectives of historical symbolism, the inheritance of civilization and culture, and collective national memory.
Chapter 3 The Chinese Civil War and the Transfer of Palace Museum Cultural Treasures to Taiwan
— An Examination of the Succession of Chinese Civilization and Dynastic Legitimacy —
3-1 The End of World War II and the Resumption of the Chinese Civil War
The Sino-Japanese War came to an end in August 1945 with Japan’s surrender.
However, with the disappearance of Japan as their common enemy, the conflict between the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which had temporarily cooperated under the Second United Front, once again came to the surface.
Following the end of World War II, the question of who would lead China’s future rapidly intensified into a major confrontation between the Nationalists and the Communists. Although both sides initially sought political compromise, they simultaneously expanded their respective military and political bases throughout the country, eventually moving toward full-scale civil war.³⁵
Initially, the Nationalist government was widely recognized internationally as the government representing China and held an advantage in terms of state institutions, military strength, and diplomatic standing.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party expanded its areas of control, particularly in northern and northeastern China, and strengthened its influence by promoting land reform and political organization based on rural communities.
The conflict between the two sides was not merely a struggle for power between political parties.
It was also a competition over the future of the Chinese state: who would construct the postwar political order and who would govern as the government representing China.
From 1948 onward, the course of the Chinese Civil War changed dramatically.
The Liaoshen Campaign was fought in the northeast, the Huaihai Campaign in eastern and central China, and the Pingjin Campaign in northern China. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) achieved successive victories in these campaigns. As a result, the Nationalist forces suffered devastating setbacks, and the military and political foundations of the Nationalist government on the Chinese mainland rapidly collapsed.³⁶
In January 1949, Beiping (present-day Beijing) came under the control of the People’s Liberation Army, and in April of the same year, Nanjing fell.
Because Nanjing had been the political center of the Republic of China government, its fall symbolized the collapse of the Nationalist government’s rule over mainland China.
The People’s Liberation Army subsequently took control of major areas throughout mainland China, and on October 1, 1949, the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was proclaimed.
Meanwhile, the Nationalist government relocated its base to Taiwan and maintained its governing structure as the government of the Republic of China (ROC).
Thus, from 1949 onward, a situation emerged in which two political systems coexisted: the People’s Republic of China on the Chinese mainland and the Republic of China on Taiwan.
This historical transformation has important implications for the question of “legitimacy” examined in this study.
The People’s Republic of China positioned the revolution led by the Chinese Communist Party and the establishment of a new state as the foundation of its legitimacy.
By contrast, the Republic of China maintained the position that it had inherited the state institutions and legal continuity of the republican state established in 1912.
Consequently, relations between mainland China and Taiwan after 1949 came to involve not only a territorial division but also a competition over the question of what constitutes the legitimate government representing China.³⁷
3-2 The Relocation of the Chiang Kai-shek Government to Taiwan
As the situation in the Chinese Civil War rapidly deteriorated, the Republic of China government under Chiang Kai-shek proceeded to relocate government agencies, military institutions, and administrative functions from mainland China to Taiwan.
In this process, not only government institutions but also the central bank, state assets, important documents, and academic materials were transferred to Taiwan.
In December 1949, Chiang Kai-shek moved to Taiwan, and the Republic of China government maintained its governing structure centered in Taipei.³⁸
This relocation of the government cannot be fully understood simply as an evacuation following a military defeat.
Even after losing control of mainland China, the government of the Republic of China continued to regard itself as the legitimate government representing China.
Therefore, the relocation of government institutions to Taiwan had the significance of preserving the state apparatus itself and ensuring the continuity of the Republic of China as a state.
It is important to note here that it was not only government institutions that were transferred to Taiwan.
In addition to administrative and military institutions, financial assets, state documents, and academic materials, important cultural treasures from the Palace Museum were also transferred to Taiwan.
However, it cannot be conclusively stated that the relocation of government institutions and the transfer of cultural treasures were undertaken for exactly the same political purpose.
This is because the transfer of the Palace Museum collections appears to have had the clear practical objective of protecting cultural treasures from the devastation of war.
At the same time, however, the fact that important cultural treasures symbolizing the court culture of successive Chinese dynasties were transferred to Taiwan during the period when the Nationalist government was attempting to maintain its state institutions there subsequently came to symbolize the historical and cultural continuity of the Republic of China.
This study examines this issue from both the practical perspective of cultural heritage preservation and the symbolic perspective of historical continuity.
At the same time, it is necessary to avoid the simplistic conclusion that “the transfer of the Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan was carried out with the purpose of maintaining the legitimacy of the Republic of China.”
Multiple factors may have influenced the policy decisions, including the protection of cultural treasures from the turmoil of war, their secure preservation, and the continuation of national cultural heritage.
Accordingly, this study analyzes the relationship between the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan and the legitimacy of the Republic of China not as a direct causal relationship, but as a historical and symbolic relationship.⁴⁶
3-3 The Transfer of the Palace Museum Cultural Treasures
The Palace Museum was established in 1925, centered on the Forbidden City in Beijing. Its collections included a wide range of cultural treasures passed down through the imperial courts of the Ming and Qing dynasties, including bronzeware, jade objects, ceramics, calligraphy and paintings, imperial seals, historical documents, and ritual objects.³⁹
These cultural treasures are not merely a collection of works of art.
They are cultural heritage that materially conveys the history of politics, thought, religion, literature, art, and technology accumulated over the long course of successive Chinese dynasties.
As the danger of war increased in China from the 1930s onward, important cultural treasures belonging to the Palace Museum were gradually evacuated from Beijing to southern parts of China in order to protect them from the destruction of war.
According to the transfer route described in the original manuscript, the collections were dispersed for safekeeping from Beijing to Nanjing, Shanghai, and the Sichuan and Bashu regions, among other locations, before subsequently being consolidated in the vicinity of Nanjing after the war.⁴⁰
However, these transfers were not carried out as a single large-scale movement. Rather, they took place on multiple occasions in response to changing military circumstances.
Therefore, when examining the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures, it is necessary to distinguish between:
the wartime evacuation from Beijing to southern China and the subsequent transfer of some of the cultural treasures to Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War.
The primary purpose of the wartime evacuation was to prevent the destruction or loss of cultural treasures as a result of warfare.
After the end of World War II, some of the collections that had been dispersed for safekeeping were returned to the vicinity of Nanjing.
However, after 1948, as the military situation in the Chinese Civil War changed rapidly, the Nationalist government decided to transfer some of the most important cultural treasures to Taiwan.
The original manuscript states that approximately 3,000 crates of cultural treasures were transported to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949.⁴¹
It is important to note, however, that not the entire collection of the Palace Museum was transferred to Taiwan; only a portion of it was moved.
Consequently, after 1949, the Palace Museum in Beijing and the National Palace Museum in Taipei came to inherit different groups of cultural treasures and distinct historical spaces.
Today, the National Palace Museum in Taipei houses an enormous collection of cultural treasures originating from successive Chinese dynasties. Among its best-known holdings are the Jadeite Cabbage, the Meat-shaped Stone, the Mao Gong Ding, and Fan Kuan’s Travelers among Mountains and Streams.⁴²
These cultural treasures are internationally renowned as symbols of the long history of Chinese civilization.
By contrast, the Palace Museum in Beijing preserves and inherits the Forbidden City itself, which served as the imperial palace of the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Thus, after 1949, the two Palace Museums came to represent different forms of historical inheritance:
Beijing Palace Museum = inheritance of the political space, architecture, and palace culture of the dynastic era
Taipei National Palace Museum = inheritance of imperial court collections, cultural treasures, and intellectual heritage
This distinction constitutes an analytical framework for the present study.⁴⁵
This difference is important when considering the issue of the “succession of Chinese civilization,” which will be examined below.
3-4 The Historical Explanation of Cultural Heritage Preservation
The transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan can, first and foremost, be explained as a measure taken to protect valuable cultural heritage from war and political turmoil.
At least three perspectives can be identified in this regard.
First, cultural treasures were protected from destruction and disorder resulting from the Chinese Civil War.
Second, cultural heritage was moved to secure locations in response to social turmoil accompanying the establishment of a new political system.
Third, important cultural treasures representing Chinese civilization were preserved for transmission to future generations.
From this perspective, the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan can be understood as a cultural heritage preservation policy.
In fact, during the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976, temples, historic buildings, cultural treasures, and other forms of heritage in mainland China suffered extensive damage.
Therefore, the fact that cultural treasures transferred to Taiwan were ultimately preserved may be regarded as having historical significance from the perspective of cultural heritage protection.⁴³
However, caution is necessary here as well.
The Cultural Revolution occurred after the transfer of cultural treasures to Taiwan in 1949. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the transfer of the collections at that time was intended to protect cultural heritage from the Cultural Revolution.
The destruction of cultural heritage during the Cultural Revolution should instead be regarded as a later historical event and as part of the historical context for evaluating the preservation of the cultural treasures transferred to Taiwan.
This distinction is important in order to avoid confusing historical facts with evaluations made from the perspective of later developments.
Accordingly, this study treats the direct purposes of the 1948–1949 transfer as “protection from war,” “secure preservation,” and “the continuation of cultural heritage,” while treating the Cultural Revolution as a subsequent historical development.
3-5 Palace Museum Cultural Treasures and Dynastic Legitimacy
— The Analytical Hypothesis of This Study —
This section examines the original analytical perspective proposed by this study.
Throughout Chinese history, during periods of dynastic transition, emperors, palaces, imperial seals, official histories, rituals, and treasures were treated as symbols of the authority and historical continuity of new rulers.
Of course, political legitimacy in the modern nation-state cannot be equated with legitimacy in ancient and medieval dynasties.
Nevertheless, the role of historical symbols and cultural heritage in making visible the “collective memory of the state” and the “continuity of civilization” beyond changes in political systems is an important consideration in the study of Chinese history.
The cultural treasures housed in the Palace Museum had been passed down through the imperial courts of successive emperors during the Ming and Qing dynasties. They were therefore not merely works of art but cultural heritage that materially embodied Chinese history and imperial court culture.
Before 1949, the government of the Republic of China regarded itself as the legitimate government representing China.
Within this context, the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures originating from successive dynasties to Taiwan may, as a consequence, have acquired symbolic significance as evidence that the Republic of China was an inheritor of China’s historical and cultural heritage.
This study presents this possibility as follows:
The transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan may have had the symbolic significance of preserving the historical and cultural continuity of Chinese civilization.
However, this remains an analytical hypothesis of the present study.⁴⁶
The available sources examined at the current stage of this research do not directly establish that the transfer of the Palace Museum collections was decided from the outset with the single political objective of “maintaining the legitimacy of the Republic of China.”
Accordingly, this study distinguishes among the following factors:
- Cultural heritage preservation
- Continuity of national cultural assets
- Avoidance of wartime destruction
- Continuity of administrative and state institutions
- Symbolic representation of historical and cultural continuity
On this basis, the study proposes that:
“The transfer of the Palace Museum cultural treasures may, as a consequence, have played a symbolic role in representing the historical continuity of the Republic of China.”
This framework makes it possible to examine the symbolic significance of Palace Museum cultural treasures in contemporary Chinese politics without confusing historical facts with analytical hypotheses.
3-6 The Beijing Palace Museum and the Taipei National Palace Museum
Since 1949, the Palace Museum in Beijing and the National Palace Museum in Taipei have developed within different historical environments.
The Palace Museum in Beijing preserves the Forbidden City itself, which served as the imperial palace of the Ming and Qing dynasties, and plays a role in presenting its architecture, palace spaces, imperial institutions, and court culture.
By contrast, the National Palace Museum in Taipei developed primarily around the imperial court collections transferred to Taiwan and has preserved, researched, and exhibited cultural treasures, calligraphy and paintings, ceramics, jade objects, historical documents, and other materials from successive Chinese dynasties.⁴⁴
In this sense, although the two institutions share the name “Palace Museum,” they represent different forms of historical inheritance.
The Beijing Palace Museum symbolizes the inheritance of the physical space in which the dynasties existed.
The Taipei National Palace Museum symbolizes the inheritance of cultural treasures and intellectual heritage accumulated within the imperial courts.
Comparing these two forms of inheritance is important when considering the question of the “legitimate inheritor of Chinese civilization.”
However, the existence of the two museums does not, in itself, determine the political legitimacy of either the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China.
In the modern era, state legitimacy is constituted by a variety of factors, including constitutional arrangements, effective governance, the will of the people, and international relations.
The inheritance of Palace Museum cultural treasures should therefore be examined as one historical and cultural factor among many.⁴⁷
This study does not present the question as a binary choice of “which of Beijing and Taipei is the only legitimate Palace Museum.”
Rather, it focuses on the fact that both institutions preserve historical memories of Chinese civilization in different ways.
From this perspective, the Palace Museum can also be understood as a cultural space that makes visible the long-term history of Chinese civilization beyond the political division between mainland China and Taiwan.
3-7 The Position of the Palace Museum in Taiwan
In Taiwan, the National Palace Museum is more than simply a museum.
As a national cultural institution responsible for preserving, researching, and exhibiting cultural heritage originating from successive Chinese dynasties, it has played an important role in education, cultural diplomacy, and international exchange.
The cultural treasures held by the National Palace Museum are also deeply connected to historical perceptions within Taiwanese society.
After 1949, complex issues surrounding historical consciousness and political identity developed between people who had migrated from mainland China and those who had previously lived in Taiwan.
As Taiwan subsequently underwent democratization, perceptions within Taiwanese society regarding the relationship between “China” and “Taiwan” also changed.
Amid these social changes, the National Palace Museum itself came to face new debates regarding its role and position.
At the same time, however, the cultural value of the Palace Museum collections themselves should be evaluated separately from political positions.
The Palace Museum collections constitute cultural heritage that conveys the history of Chinese civilization over several thousand years, transcending the contemporary political divisions between mainland China and Taiwan.
In this respect, the National Palace Museum is not only a cultural institution in Taiwan but also an institution for the preservation and study of world cultural heritage.
Accordingly, this study avoids limiting the position of the National Palace Museum in Taiwan simply to that of an institution symbolizing the political legitimacy of the Republic of China.
Rather, it should be understood from multiple perspectives:
- An institution preserving the cultural heritage of Chinese civilization
- An institution symbolizing the historical continuity of the Republic of China
- A cultural and educational institution within Taiwanese society
- An institution promoting international cultural exchange
It is precisely this multifaceted character that makes the National Palace Museum a unique institution in contemporary Taiwan.
3-8 Palace Museum Cultural Treasures and the Question of the “Inheritor of Chinese Civilization”
As demonstrated by the analysis in this chapter, since 1949, the Beijing Palace Museum and the Taipei National Palace Museum have inherited the historical heritage of Chinese civilization in different ways.
The Beijing Palace Museum preserves the political space of the dynastic era itself—the Forbidden City.
The Taipei National Palace Museum preserves a portion of the cultural treasures and intellectual heritage accumulated within the imperial courts of successive dynasties.
A comparison of these two forms of inheritance reveals the difficulty of attributing the concept of the “inheritor of Chinese civilization” exclusively to a single political entity.
The People’s Republic of China exercises effective control over mainland China and administers China’s historical heritage, including the Beijing Palace Museum.
The Republic of China exercises effective control over Taiwan and preserves important collections of imperial court cultural treasures at the National Palace Museum in Taipei.
This situation demonstrates that political governance and cultural inheritance do not necessarily coincide completely.
Therefore, this study does not equate the concept of the “inheritor of Chinese civilization” with the legal legitimacy of a state.
Rather, it distinguishes among multiple dimensions:
- Political legitimacy
- Legal legitimacy
- Effective governance
- International recognition
- Historical continuity
- Cultural continuity
The study then analyzes how each of these dimensions influences contemporary relations between mainland China and Taiwan.
From this perspective, the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan has important symbolic significance for understanding cross-Strait relations after 1949.
However, its significance does not lead to the simplistic conclusion that “the side possessing the Palace Museum cultural treasures is the sole legitimate government of China.”
Rather, the existence and inheritance of the Palace Museum collections demonstrate that the political legitimacy of a state and the historical continuity of a civilization can exist on different levels.
This point constitutes the central significance of the study of Palace Museum cultural treasures in the present research.⁴⁸
Summary of Chapter 3
Following Japan’s defeat in 1945, the conflict between the Nationalists and the Communists in China intensified once again, and the Chinese Civil War became a full-scale conflict.
After 1948, as the People’s Liberation Army achieved successive victories in major military campaigns, the Nationalist government lost its governing foundations on mainland China, and the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949.
In contrast, the government of the Republic of China relocated to Taiwan and maintained its state institutions.
During this process, not only government agencies and state assets but also important cultural treasures from the Palace Museum were transferred to Taiwan.
The transfer of the Palace Museum cultural treasures can, first and foremost, be understood as a measure to protect valuable cultural heritage from the destruction of war.
At the same time, this study examines the possibility that the transfer of cultural treasures symbolizing the court culture of successive Chinese dynasties to Taiwan subsequently acquired significance as a symbol of the historical and cultural continuity of the Republic of China.
However, this is an analytical hypothesis proposed by the present study and does not imply that the transfer of the Palace Museum collections was undertaken solely for the purpose of maintaining the legitimacy of the Republic of China.
The Beijing Palace Museum and the Taipei National Palace Museum each inherit the historical heritage of Chinese civilization in different forms.
The Beijing Palace Museum inherits the political space and architecture of the dynastic era represented by the Forbidden City, while the Taipei National Palace Museum inherits cultural treasures and intellectual heritage accumulated within the imperial courts of successive dynasties.
In this sense, while the two institutions may be viewed as competing symbols, they can also be understood as two cultural centers preserving different aspects of Chinese civilization.
Therefore, the inheritance of Palace Museum cultural treasures should be distinguished from the legal legitimacy of a state.
At the same time, because cultural heritage symbolizes historical memory and the continuity of civilization, the Palace Museum collections constitute an important subject of analysis when examining the contemporary political and historical relationship between mainland China and Taiwan.
Chapter 3 Footnotes
35 For the relationship between the Nationalists and Communists following Japan’s defeat in 1945 and the resumption of the Chinese Civil War, see studies on modern and contemporary Chinese history.
36 For the Liaoshen Campaign, Huaihai Campaign, and Pingjin Campaign, see studies on the history of the Chinese Civil War. The specific dates, areas of operation, and military developments of each campaign should be verified against specialized historical research.
37 The discussion of the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China in this chapter is based on the analytical framework of the present study. The legitimacy of both entities must be examined from multiple perspectives, including revolutionary state-building, legal continuity, effective governance, and international recognition.
38 For the relocation of the Republic of China government to Taiwan in 1949, see modern Taiwanese history and historical materials of the Republic of China government.
39 For the establishment of the Palace Museum in Beijing and its collections, see official materials published by the Palace Museum.
40 For the wartime evacuation of Palace Museum cultural treasures, see materials published by the National Palace Museum and the Palace Museum. This study adopts, as a conceptual framework, the route presented in Appendix 3 of the original manuscript: “Beijing → Nanjing → Shanghai → Sichuan/Bashu region and other areas → consolidation in Nanjing after the war.” This does not mean that all cultural treasures followed the same route.
41 Regarding the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan in 1948–1949, the original manuscript states that approximately 3,000 crates were transported. However, descriptions may differ among sources concerning the number of crates, the number of transfers, and the scope of the cultural treasures involved. Final verification using primary sources, including materials from the National Palace Museum, is recommended prior to publication.
42 The Jadeite Cabbage, Meat-shaped Stone, Mao Gong Ding, and Travelers among Mountains and Streams are widely known as representative holdings of the National Palace Museum in Taipei. For information concerning the artists, dates, and official classifications of these works, see the official collection records of the National Palace Museum.
43 For damage to cultural treasures, historic buildings, and other heritage during the Cultural Revolution, see studies on modern and contemporary Chinese history and the history of cultural heritage. This study does not regard the Cultural Revolution as a direct purpose of the transfer of cultural treasures in 1948–1949, but treats it as a subsequent historical development.
44 For the history, collections, research, and exhibition activities of the Palace Museum in Beijing and the National Palace Museum in Taipei, see the respective official materials of the two institutions.
45 The distinction between “the Beijing Palace Museum = inheritance of the political space, architecture, and physical setting of the dynastic era” and “the Taipei National Palace Museum = inheritance of imperial court collections, cultural treasures, and intellectual heritage” constitutes an analytical framework developed by the present study.
46 The proposition that “the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan may have symbolically preserved the historical and cultural continuity of the Republic of China” is an analytical hypothesis of this study and does not indicate that this was the sole policy objective of the transfer.
47 This study distinguishes between the “inheritor of Chinese civilization” and the “legal legitimacy of the state of China.” The former concerns historical and cultural continuity, while the latter concerns the legitimacy of the modern state, including constitutional arrangements, effective governance, international recognition, and the will of the people.
48 Analyzing the transfer of Palace Museum cultural treasures to Taiwan from the two perspectives of “cultural heritage preservation” and “historical continuity” constitutes a central analytical perspective of this study. This approach does not deny the importance of cultural heritage preservation; rather, it additionally examines the political and symbolic significance that the transfer may have acquired as a consequence.
Chapter 4 The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China
— Competition over Legitimacy between Two “Chinas” —
4-1. The Division of China in 1949
On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Meanwhile, the government of the Republic of China (ROC), led by Chiang Kai-shek after its defeat in the Chinese Civil War, relocated to Taiwan by the end of that year and continued its administration with Taipei as its political center.⁴⁹
As a result, two political systems came to coexist: the People’s Republic of China on the Chinese mainland and the Republic of China on Taiwan. However, their relationship cannot simply be understood as the coexistence of “two states.”
Both governments regarded themselves as the sole legitimate government representing China and refused to recognize the political legitimacy of the other. The People’s Republic of China claimed to be the sole legitimate government representing the Chinese people as a new state established through the revolution led by the Chinese Communist Party.
In contrast, the government of the Republic of China maintained that it had inherited the legal and institutional continuity of the republican state established in 1912. The relocation of the government to Taiwan was initially regarded as a temporary political and military situation resulting from the civil war on the Chinese mainland, and the ROC sought to maintain its position as the government representing all of China.⁵⁰
Thus, at the core of the conflict after 1949 was the question of “who represents China.” This was not merely a competition for territorial control. It was also a competition over national legitimacy, governmental representation, historical continuity, and, ultimately, the inheritance of Chinese civilization.
The conflict over the “Two Chinas” subsequently became a major factor shaping not only political relations between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan but also the international politics of East Asia for several decades.
Furthermore, this competition extended beyond the military and diplomatic spheres, influencing education, historical narratives, cultural policy, national symbols, and the preservation and transmission of cultural heritage.
The transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan, examined in Chapter 3, must also be situated within this historical context. However, it would be inappropriate to immediately conclude that the transfer of the artifacts was a policy designed solely to serve political legitimacy. Multiple factors were likely involved, including the protection of cultural artifacts from war, their safe preservation, and the continuation of national cultural assets.
Nevertheless, as a result of the transfer, important cultural artifacts symbolizing the court culture of successive Chinese dynasties came to be preserved in Taiwan. The possibility that this fact subsequently acquired symbolic significance as an expression of the historical and cultural continuity of the Republic of China requires separate consideration.
Accordingly, the division of China in 1949 can be regarded not simply as the outcome of a civil war, but as a historical turning point that institutionalized two long-term questions: who would represent the state of “China,” and who would inherit its history and civilization.
4-2. State-Building and Legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China
Following its establishment in 1949, the People’s Republic of China adopted the construction of a socialist state as its national objective and undertook large-scale political, economic, and social reforms.
In the 1950s, land reform was implemented, resulting in the dismantling of the landlord system and the redistribution of agricultural land. At the same time, through the nationalization of major industries and the introduction of a planned economy, a socialist economic system modeled in part on that of the Soviet Union was established.⁵¹ Such state-building was presented as the achievement of the revolution led by the Chinese Communist Party.
In this sense, the political legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China was not based on the logic of inheriting the legal continuity of the Republic of China established in 1912. Rather, it rested on what may be termed the “legitimacy of revolution”: the claim that the old political order had been overthrown through revolution and that a new state had been established.
Accordingly, the establishment of the People’s Republic of China was not merely a change of government but a historical transformation that fundamentally altered the political system itself.
However, the process of state-building also generated serious political and social turmoil. The “Great Leap Forward,” launched in 1958, promoted rapid industrialization and the establishment of people’s communes, but policy failures and administrative disorder resulted in severe economic difficulties and a large-scale famine.⁵²
Furthermore, during the Cultural Revolution, which began in 1966, existing culture, education, religion, intellectual communities, and other elements of society became targets of intense political campaigns. During this period, many cultural artifacts, temples, and historic structures are reported to have suffered significant damage.⁵³
This historical experience is also important when considering the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan examined in Chapter 3.
The transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949 can primarily be understood as a measure intended to protect cultural heritage from the dangers of war. Subsequently, because the Cultural Revolution occurred on the Chinese mainland, there has also been a historical assessment that the artifacts transferred to Taiwan were, as a consequence, preserved from destruction.
However, the Cultural Revolution occurred after 1949. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a direct purpose of the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan.
In this study, the Cultural Revolution is treated not as the “purpose” of the transfer of the artifacts but as a historical event that occurred after the transfer. Maintaining this distinction is important in order to avoid conflating historical facts with retrospective assessments.
Subsequently, from 1978 onward, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, China pursued the policy of reform and opening-up, introducing elements of a market economy while advancing economic reforms. As a result, the Chinese economy experienced rapid growth and developed into one of the world’s major economic powers.⁵⁴
This economic development significantly enhanced the effectiveness of the People’s Republic of China as a state and strengthened its international influence. Therefore, the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China after 1949 can be understood as having been shaped not only by the initial legitimacy derived from revolutionary state-building, but also by multiple factors, including long-term governance, economic development, and the expansion of its international standing.
4-3. ROC Rule in Taiwan and the Transformation of Its Legitimacy
After relocating from the Chinese mainland to Taiwan, the government of the Republic of China established a new system of governance on the island.
Under martial law, the government exercised strong centralized rule and for many years maintained the recovery of the Chinese mainland as a national objective. At the same time, it maintained educational, military, and administrative institutions and asserted the continuity of the state apparatus under the Constitution of the Republic of China.⁵⁵
During this period, the ROC government did not define itself simply as a government governing Taiwan. Rather, it maintained its position as the government representing all of China and regarded itself as continuing, on Taiwan, the legal and institutional tradition of the Republic of China established in 1912.
Accordingly, the ROC government’s rule in Taiwan was presented not as the establishment of a mere local government but as the continuation of the state system of the Republic of China.
At the same time, Taiwan underwent reconstruction of its postwar social and economic foundations. Land reform increased agricultural productivity, and from the 1960s onward, Taiwan adopted an export-oriented industrialization strategy. Subsequently, economic growth centered on the electronics and machinery industries led Taiwan to develop into an advanced industrial economy.⁵⁶
This economic development became an important factor strengthening the governing capacity of the ROC government in Taiwan. However, restrictions on political freedom continued for an extended period within Taiwanese society.
From the late 1980s onward, political reforms progressed and the era of martial law moved toward its conclusion. Constitutional amendments and political reforms were subsequently implemented, including the introduction of direct presidential elections, fundamentally transforming Taiwan’s political system.⁵⁷
As democratization progressed, a multiparty political system became established in Taiwan, and transfers of power through elections became possible. This transformation also significantly altered the foundations of the legitimacy of the Republic of China.
Immediately after 1949, the ROC government relied primarily on the legal continuity of the “government representing all of China” as a major source of legitimacy.
However, as democratization advanced, political participation within Taiwanese society, electoral legitimacy, and effective governance came to acquire increasing importance.
This meant that the legitimacy of the Republic of China came to rest not only on historical legal continuity but also on democratic governance and effective state administration within Taiwan.
This represents a major transformation in the character of ROC legitimacy from the time of 1949 to the present.
In other words, whereas the ROC initially emphasized “continuity as the state representing all of China,” the Republic of China in the subsequent period increasingly strengthened its political legitimacy on the basis of effective governance and democratic institutions in Taiwan.
4-4. The Cold War and the “Two Chinas”
Relations between mainland China and Taiwan after 1949 were both an extension of the Chinese Civil War and deeply intertwined with the international structure of the Cold War.
Following its establishment, the People’s Republic of China strengthened its relationship with the Soviet Union and became aligned with the socialist bloc.
In contrast, the Republic of China received support from the United States and the broader liberal camp, becoming an important strategic base for anti-communist strategy in East Asia.⁵⁸
The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 brought a major transformation to this structure.
When war broke out on the Korean Peninsula, the United States deployed the Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait, seeking to maintain military stability in the strait while supporting the defense of the ROC government.⁵⁹
As a result, the Taiwan Strait became one of the principal areas of military tension in East Asia during the Cold War.
For the People’s Republic of China, the Taiwan issue was both an unresolved problem arising from the Chinese Civil War and a question of national unification.
For the United States, meanwhile, Taiwan was positioned as part of its broader security strategy in East Asia.
Consequently, the Taiwan issue expanded from a domestic Chinese political question into an international security issue.
During the 1950s, crises emerged in the Taiwan Strait, and the military confrontation between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China developed into an international crisis.
As a result, the Taiwan Strait became a region where the following four dimensions intersected:
- The civil-war structure between mainland China and Taiwan
- U.S.-China relations
- The U.S.-Soviet Cold War
- East Asian security
Therefore, understanding the Taiwan issue after 1949 requires simultaneous consideration of both the historical context of the Chinese Civil War and the international political structure of the Cold War.
The Taiwan issue thus emerged as a problem situated at the boundary between domestic and international politics.
4-5. The “Pai Dan” and Taiwan’s Defense System
The relationship between Taiwan and Japan is also an important issue when examining the formation of Taiwan’s postwar defense system.
After the war, some former Japanese military personnel are reported to have become involved in military education and training in Taiwan. The human network generally known as the “Pai Dan” is said to have participated in the education, training, and operational planning of the Taiwanese military.⁶⁰
The activities of the Pai Dan are understood to have been conducted in a form distinct from official military assistance by the Japanese government, constituting one aspect of postwar relations between Japan and Taiwan.
While some studies have assessed that the Pai Dan had a certain influence on the modernization and military education of the Taiwanese armed forces, evaluations of its specific activities and impact vary among researchers, partly due to limitations in publicly available sources.
Accordingly, this study treats the Pai Dan as one factor associated with the formation of Taiwan’s defense system but avoids overstating its influence.
Taiwan’s defense system was shaped by multiple factors, including U.S. military assistance, organizational reforms within the ROC armed forces, and personal and historical relationships with surrounding regions, including Japan.
The issue of the Pai Dan also illustrates that Taiwan did not develop its security system in isolation after 1949, but rather constructed its defense capabilities within the broader international security network of the Cold War.
In this sense, the security issue surrounding the Taiwan Strait was connected not only to the confrontation between mainland China and Taiwan but also to the broader structure of international politics involving Japan, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other actors.
The Taiwan issue was therefore, from the outset, a structural problem involving multiple states and international forces.
4-6. Competition over Legitimacy
Since 1949, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China have asserted their respective legitimacy on fundamentally different grounds.
The People’s Republic of China based its legitimacy on the overthrow of the old political order through revolution and the construction of a new state.
In contrast, the Republic of China based its legitimacy on its inheritance of the legal and institutional continuity of the republican state established in 1912.⁶¹
These two forms of legitimacy are grounded in different historical narratives concerning the same “China.”
The legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China has been shaped by such factors as:
- Revolution
- The construction of a new state
- Effective governance of mainland China
- Economic development
- International influence
Meanwhile, the legitimacy of the Republic of China has been shaped primarily by:
- Legal continuity as the republican state established in 1912
- Continuity of state institutions
- Effective governance in Taiwan
- Economic development
- Democratic institutions
- Political legitimacy derived from elections
From this perspective, legitimacy cannot be determined by a single factor. This study argues that legitimacy should be analyzed along at least the following seven dimensions.⁶²
① Historical legitimacy
② Revolutionary and political legitimacy
③ Legal and institutional legitimacy
④ Legitimacy derived from effective governance
⑤ International recognition
⑥ Democratic legitimacy
⑦ Civilizational and cultural continuity
Using these seven dimensions makes it possible to analyze the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China not as a simple binary choice but as a structure in which multiple elements overlap.
At this point, the central issue of this study—the relationship between the Palace Museums and legitimacy—comes into view.
The Palace Museum artifacts are not merely works of art or cultural objects. They are cultural heritage that materially conveys the long history and court culture of China, including the Ming and Qing dynasties, and they also constitute symbolic assets that make the historical continuity of Chinese civilization visible.
Therefore, the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan and the existence of the National Palace Museum in Taipei may, as a consequence, have acquired symbolic significance as expressions of the historical and cultural continuity of the Republic of China.
Meanwhile, the Palace Museum in Beijing preserves the Forbidden City itself, the political space that served as the imperial palace of the Ming and Qing dynasties. Accordingly, the Palace Museums in Beijing and Taipei can be understood as representing different forms of historical continuity within Chinese civilization.⁶⁵
However, this study does not conclude that either institution is the “sole inheritor of civilization.”
Rather, it emphasizes that political legitimacy and cultural or civilizational continuity are not necessarily identical. The possession or management of cultural artifacts alone does not determine the legal or political legitimacy of a modern state.⁶⁶
Likewise, when this study compares “dynastic succession” in Chinese imperial history with the legitimacy of the modern People’s Republic of China and Republic of China, the two should not be treated as identical.
The People’s Republic of China was established through a modern revolution, and its political institutions and foundations of legitimacy differ fundamentally from those of historical dynasties. The concept of “dynastic succession” used here does not directly equate historical dynasties with modern states.
Rather, it is a methodological perspective for analyzing how historical symbols, cultural heritage, collective national memory, and civilizational continuity relate to political legitimacy.⁶³
From this perspective, the competition between the “Two Chinas” after 1949 must be understood along multiple axes, including:
- Revolution and legal continuity
- Effective governance and international recognition
- Democratic legitimacy
- Historical and cultural continuity
Within this framework, Palace Museum artifacts do not determine political legitimacy itself, but they have important significance as cultural assets that make the historical continuity of Chinese civilization visible.
As presented in Chapter 3, multiple factors can be identified in the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan, including the protection of cultural heritage, avoidance of the dangers of war, and the preservation of national cultural assets.⁶⁴
At the same time, the preservation in Taipei of an important collection of cultural artifacts from successive imperial courts may have contributed to the Republic of China becoming one symbolic center of the historical and cultural continuity of Chinese civilization.
This point must be distinguished from the direct policy objectives of the transfer of the artifacts.
Accordingly, the Taiwan issue can be understood not as a simple territorial dispute, but as a complex issue in which two questions overlap: the contemporary political question of “who represents China?” and the historical and cultural question of “who is the inheritor of Chinese civilization?”
However, the expression “Two Chinas” in this study is an analytical concept referring to the historical situation after 1949 in which the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China competed as governments claiming to represent “China.” It does not simply describe the current international legal status of state recognition.⁶⁷
By clarifying this distinction, this study can analyze the historical competition between the “Two Chinas” and the contemporary Taiwan issue in international politics without conflating the two.
Summary of Chapter 4
The division of China in 1949 did not merely create two political systems. It marked the beginning of a long-term competition over the question of which entity constituted the “legitimate China.”
The People’s Republic of China based its legitimacy on its status as a new state established through revolution and subsequently strengthened its position as a state through effective governance of mainland China, economic development, and growing international influence.
The Republic of China, meanwhile, continued to govern Taiwan on the basis of the legal and institutional continuity of the republican state established in 1912, subsequently developing new foundations of legitimacy through economic development and democratization.
In this sense, from 1949 to the present, the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China has been formed through different historical trajectories, despite being centered on the same concept of “China.”
Relations between mainland China and Taiwan after 1949 were also closely linked to the international structure of the Cold War.
The Korean War and U.S. military involvement in the Taiwan Strait transformed the Taiwan issue from a problem arising from the Chinese Civil War into an international security issue.
Furthermore, the formation of Taiwan’s defense system was influenced not only by its relationship with the United States but also, to a certain extent, by personal and historical relations with Japan.
Considering this historical development, “legitimacy” cannot be understood as a single concept.
It is formed through the interaction of multiple elements, including revolution, legal continuity, effective governance, international recognition, democratic legitimacy, and historical and cultural continuity.
This study focuses particularly on the concept of “civilizational and cultural continuity.”
The artifacts of the Palace Museums are not merely works of art or cultural objects; they are symbolic assets that make the historical continuity of Chinese civilization visible.
While the National Palace Museum in Taipei preserves important court artifacts from successive Chinese dynasties, the Palace Museum in Beijing preserves the Forbidden City itself, the political and architectural space of the imperial dynasties.
Accordingly, the two institutions can be understood as inheriting different aspects of the historical heritage of Chinese civilization.⁶⁵
From this perspective, the Taiwan issue is not merely a “territorial dispute” or a “security issue.” It is a complex issue at the intersection of the contemporary political question of who represents China and the historical and cultural question of who inherits Chinese civilization.⁶⁸
Connecting the discussion of this chapter with Chapter 3 reveals that the competition between the “Two Chinas” after 1949 was not solely a competition over political legitimacy, but also a competition over historical memory and cultural continuity.
This issue subsequently entered a new phase with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971.
The question, therefore, becomes: how did the international community come to treat the “right to represent China,” over which the two governments had competed since 1949?
This question leads directly to the issue examined in the next chapter: “UN Representation and the ‘One China’ Principle.”
Chapter 4 — Footnotes
49 For the proclamation of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949, and the relocation of the ROC government to Taiwan by the end of that year, see basic sources on modern and contemporary Chinese history and modern Taiwanese history. Since the relocation of the ROC government to Taiwan proceeded in stages, this study treats the relocation to Taipei in December 1949 as the principal political turning point.
50 For the conflict between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China over governmental representation and legitimacy after 1949, see the constitutions and official government documents of both sides, as well as studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history.
51 For land reform, the nationalization of industries, and the introduction of a planned economy in the 1950s, see studies on the early state-building of the People’s Republic of China.
52 For the Great Leap Forward beginning in 1958 and its economic and social consequences, see studies of contemporary Chinese history.
53 For the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976 and its impact on cultural artifacts, historic buildings, and related heritage, see studies of Chinese cultural history and the Cultural Revolution.
54 For the reform and opening-up policies after 1978 and the development of the Chinese economy, see studies of Chinese economic history and contemporary Chinese political economy.
55 For the ROC government’s martial-law system in Taiwan and its political framework centered on the objective of “recovering mainland China,” see studies of modern Taiwanese history and the political history of the Republic of China.
56 For land reform in Taiwan and export-oriented industrialization from the 1960s onward, see studies of Taiwanese economic history and modern Taiwanese history.
57 For democratization in Taiwan, the lifting of martial law, constitutional reforms, and the introduction of direct presidential elections, see studies of Taiwanese political history and democratization.
58 For relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union after 1949, as well as relations between the Republic of China and the United States, see studies of Cold War history and the history of international relations in East Asia.
59 For the deployment of the U.S. Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait following the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, see U.S. government and congressional records, as well as studies of the Korean War and the history of the Taiwan Strait.
60 The term “Pai Dan” refers to an organization or human network through which former Japanese military personnel are said to have operated as military advisers and in other capacities in postwar Taiwan. In this study, given the limitations of publicly available sources and the range of scholarly assessments, no definitive judgment is made regarding the extent of its influence.
61 For the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China based on revolutionary state-building and the legitimacy of the Republic of China based on its legal continuity as the republican state established in 1912, see the respective constitutions, government documents, and studies of modern and contemporary Chinese history.
62 The framework analyzing legitimacy along multiple dimensions—including “revolutionary legitimacy,” “legal continuity,” “effective governance,” “international recognition,” “democratic legitimacy,” and “civilizational and cultural continuity”—constitutes the analytical framework of this study.
63 This study does not equate the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China as a revolutionary state with the legitimacy of historical Chinese dynasties based on the concepts of the “Mandate of Heaven” or “dynastic revolution.” Where comparisons are made, they are used as a methodological perspective for analyzing continuity in historical symbolism and political culture.
64 For the possibility that the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan symbolically maintained the historical continuity of the Republic of China as an “inheritor of Chinese civilization,” see the analytical hypothesis presented in Chapter 3. This interpretation does not deny the multiple factors involved in the transfer, including the protection of cultural heritage, avoidance of war, and preservation of national assets.
65 The distinction that the Palace Museum in Beijing inherits the political space and architecture of imperial dynasties embodied by the Forbidden City, while the National Palace Museum in Taipei inherits an important portion of the court collections of successive dynasties, constitutes an analytical framework developed by this study.
66 The distinction between “political legitimacy” and “civilizational and cultural continuity” is a fundamental analytical perspective of this study. The possession or management of cultural artifacts alone does not determine the legal or political legitimacy of a modern state.
67 The expression “Two Chinas” in this chapter refers to the historical situation after 1949 in which the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China competed as governments claiming to represent “China.” It does not simply describe the current international legal relationship of state recognition.
68 Analyzing the Taiwan issue from both perspectives—the question of “which government represents China” and the question of the “historical and cultural inheritance of Chinese civilization”—constitutes a central problem-setting of this study.
Clarification of the Organization of the Footnotes in Chapter 4
The footnotes and analytical framework of this chapter clarify the following points:
- The legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China
→ Revolution, state-building in the name of the people, effective governance, economic development, and international standing - The legitimacy of the Republic of China
→ Legal continuity as the republican state established in 1912, continuity of state institutions, effective governance in Taiwan, and democratization - The internationalization of the Taiwan issue
→ The Korean War, the Cold War, U.S.-China relations, and security in the Taiwan Strait - The significance of Palace Museum artifacts
→ A distinction between the historical explanation of cultural heritage protection and this study’s analytical hypothesis concerning civilizational inheritance and historical continuity - Comparison with dynastic succession
→ Modern China, represented by the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China, is not equated with ancient Chinese dynasties; instead, “historical symbols,” “cultural heritage,” and “collective national memory” are employed as analytical perspectives
Chapter 5 UN Representation and the “One China” Principle
The Transformation of Legitimacy in the International Community
5-1 The Postwar International Order and China’s Representation
Following the end of the Second World War, the international community moved toward the construction of a new international order. Established in 1945, the United Nations (UN) was positioned as the central international organization for maintaining international peace and security in the postwar world.
The Republic of China (ROC) was one of the principal Allied powers during the Second World War and participated in the United Nations from its establishment as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. This meant that, within the postwar international order, the ROC was recognized as the state representing “China.”⁶⁹
However, with the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, a situation emerged in which the government exercising effective control over mainland China did not correspond to the government representing China at the United Nations.
Although the PRC exercised effective control over most of mainland China, the “China” seat at the United Nations continued to be held by the ROC government. Meanwhile, after relocating to Taiwan, the ROC government continued to maintain its position as the government representing China at the United Nations.
This situation demonstrated that “effective governance of a state” and “international representation” do not necessarily coincide in international politics.
The PRC argued that, as the government governing mainland China, it possessed the right to represent China at the United Nations as well. In contrast, the ROC government maintained that it was the legitimate government inheriting the constitutional and institutional continuity of the Republic of China established in 1912 and therefore possessed the right to represent China.
Consequently, the dispute over China’s representation after 1949 was not merely a struggle over a seat at the United Nations. It was a question of international legitimacy concerning who should be regarded as the government representing “China.”
This issue continued for an extended period from the 1950s through the 1960s within the framework of the Cold War. Initially, many Western countries recognized the ROC as the legitimate government of China. Meanwhile, the PRC was not a member of the United Nations and remained without international representation as “China.”⁷⁰ However, this international structure began to undergo major changes from the 1960s onward.
5-2 The Cold War Structure and Changes in the Diplomatic Environment
From the 1950s through the 1960s, international politics was strongly influenced by the structure of the East-West Cold War.
Following its establishment, the PRC strengthened its relations with the Soviet Union and participated in international politics as a member of the socialist bloc. However, as the Sino-Soviet split intensified in the 1960s, relations between the PRC and the Soviet Union gradually deteriorated.⁷¹
At the same time, the United States was also confronted with changes in the international environment. Against the backdrop of the prolonged Vietnam War, strategic competition with the Soviet Union, and the security environment in East Asia, the United States began exploring ways to improve relations with China.
These changes in the international environment became an important factor in strengthening the PRC’s international position.
The successive independence of countries in Asia and Africa and the resulting increase in the number of UN member states also affected the dispute over China’s representation. Many of the newly independent states shared the experience of gaining independence from colonial rule and developed their own diplomatic positions in international politics.
As a result, the issue of China’s representation at the United Nations could no longer be explained solely along the axis of the East-West Cold War confrontation.
The question of how the international community should position the PRC, which exercised effective control over mainland China, became increasingly connected with the expansion of UN membership, decolonization, and the emergence of a more multipolar international political environment.
Against this changing background, the PRC gradually strengthened its diplomatic position in the international community. Then, in 1971, a historic transformation occurred concerning China’s representation in the international community.
5-3 UN General Assembly Resolution 2758
On October 25, 1971, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758.
Through this resolution, the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China were recognized as the only lawful representatives of China, and the PRC assumed China’s seat at the United Nations.⁷²
As a result, the PRC obtained China’s representation at the United Nations and inherited the position of permanent member of the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, the ROC government lost its position as the representative of China at the United Nations.
This event constituted a crucial turning point in the competition over the international legitimacy of the “two Chinas” that had continued since 1949.
The representation of “China” at the United Nations, which had previously been held by the ROC, was transferred to the PRC. In this sense, the change in UN representation in 1971 marked a historic turning point in which the PRC acquired the position of “China’s representative” in the international community.
However, an important issue must be considered here. While UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 addressed the question of representation concerning “which government represents China,” it did not explicitly determine the legal status of Taiwan itself.⁷³
This distinction is critically important for understanding the contemporary Taiwan issue. In other words,
- the question of which government holds China’s representation at the United Nations, and
- the question of Taiwan’s sovereignty and legal status
are not necessarily identical issues.
It is clear that, through Resolution 2758, the PRC obtained China’s representation at the United Nations. However, the resolution itself did not make a detailed determination regarding Taiwan’s ultimate legal status.
For this reason, interpretations of Resolution 2758 continue to be debated among scholars of international law, foreign policy experts, and governments in their official positions.
This study makes a clear distinction between these issues. The 1971 resolution brought about a major transformation concerning the question of “who represents China at the United Nations.” On the other hand, it did not, by itself, provide a final determination regarding “what the legal status of Taiwan is.”
Maintaining this distinction is essential for understanding contemporary international politics surrounding the “One China” issue.
5-4 The Normalization of US-China Relations and Taiwan
Following the change in UN representation in 1971, the international political structure surrounding China and Taiwan underwent further transformation.
In 1972, US President Richard Nixon visited China, initiating a historic transformation in US-China relations. One of the key figures who played a practical role in directing this diplomacy was Henry Kissinger, then Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
The United States pursued what became known as “triangular diplomacy,” seeking to establish a strategic balance with the Soviet Union through improved relations with China.⁷⁴
In the Shanghai Communiqué issued following President Nixon’s visit to China in February 1972, both the United States and China expressed their respective positions on the Taiwan issue. While the United States acknowledged the Chinese position concerning “One China,” it maintained a position on Taiwan that differed from that of the Chinese side.
Subsequently, when diplomatic relations between the United States and China were normalized in 1979, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and terminated formal diplomatic relations with the ROC.⁷⁵
However, the United States did not completely sever its relations with Taiwan. In 1979, the US Congress enacted the Taiwan Relations Act, establishing a legal framework for maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan and enabling support for the maintenance of Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.⁷⁶
As a result, US policy toward Taiwan came to possess a distinctive dual structure.
That is, the United States diplomatically recognizes the PRC as the government of China, while at the same time maintaining substantive economic, cultural, and security relations with Taiwan.
This structure is important for understanding the contemporary US “One China policy.”
However, it is also important to distinguish between the PRC’s “One China principle” and the US “One China policy.” They are not identical.
The PRC maintains the position that “there is only one China in the world and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.”
The United States, on the other hand, recognizes the Government of the PRC as the government of China while maintaining that the Taiwan issue should be resolved peacefully and refraining from making a unilateral determination concerning Taiwan’s ultimate status.
Therefore, in international politics since the 1970s, the term “One China” has not been used by all countries in exactly the same sense. This is one of the key factors contributing to the complexity of the contemporary Taiwan issue.
5-5 Three Positions Concerning “One China”
At present, three broad and distinct positions can be identified regarding “One China.”
(1) The Position of the People’s Republic of China
The PRC maintains that there is only one China in the world and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. Under this position, the Government of the PRC is regarded as the sole legitimate government representing the whole of China.
The Chinese government opposes Taiwan independence and regards the Taiwan issue as a matter of national reunification. While China identifies peaceful reunification as its fundamental policy, it has also indicated that it does not rule out non-peaceful means under certain conditions.
The Anti-Secession Law enacted in 2005 explicitly established this policy position within the legal framework of the PRC.⁷⁷ For the PRC, therefore, the Taiwan issue is connected with multiple national objectives, including:
- national sovereignty;
- territorial integrity;
- national reunification; and
- the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
(2) The Position of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
The position of the ROC government has changed over time since 1949.
In 1949, the ROC government regarded itself as the sole legitimate government representing all of China. However, with Taiwan’s democratization and changes in its social structure, its political position underwent significant transformation.
In contemporary Taiwan, there has been a growing emphasis on the reality of the ROC government as the government that exercises effective governance over Taiwan. At the same time, the state structure of the Republic of China itself has been maintained.
For this reason, Taiwan’s current political position cannot be adequately explained through a simple binary choice between being “part of the PRC” and being “a newly independent state.”
Rather, a distinctive political reality exists in which the existing state structure of the ROC is maintained while democratic governance and effective control are continued in Taiwan.⁷⁹ Moreover, within Taiwanese society, political forces and public opinion differ regarding unification, independence, and maintaining the status quo.⁸⁰
Consequently, the Taiwan issue is not merely a question of historical interpretation. It is a complex issue in which political institutions, social identity, democracy, security, and economic relations overlap.
(3) The Position of the United States and Other Major Countries
Today, many countries maintain diplomatic relations with the PRC and adopt a “One China policy.” However, the “One China policy” adopted by each country is not necessarily identical to the PRC’s “One China principle.”⁸¹
The United States, in particular, recognizes the Government of the PRC as the government of China while refraining from making a unilateral determination concerning Taiwan’s ultimate status and emphasizing peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Although it does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it continues to maintain substantive economic, cultural, and security relations with the island.
Thus, there is a certain degree of variation in the positions of countries in the international community concerning “One China.” It is therefore inappropriate to assume, merely from the use of the term “One China,” that all countries have adopted exactly the same political and legal position.
The policies of individual countries combine multiple issues, including recognition of China’s representation, Taiwan’s legal status, peace in the Taiwan Strait, security policy, and diplomatic recognition.
5-6 Legitimacy and International Recognition
This study argues that “legitimacy” must be understood from two perspectives.
The first is domestic legitimacy. This concerns whether the people of a country recognize the legitimacy of its government.
The second is international legitimacy. This concerns whether other countries and international organizations recognize an entity as a state or government.
The relationship between the PRC and the ROC since 1949 demonstrates that these two forms of legitimacy do not necessarily coincide.⁸²
The PRC has exercised effective control over a vast territory in mainland China and has developed into a major state in terms of population, economic power, and military capability.
Furthermore, since the change in UN representation in 1971, many countries have come to recognize the Government of the PRC as the government of “China.” In this sense, the PRC has acquired a significant degree of international legitimacy.
By contrast, the ROC lost its representation at the United Nations, and the number of countries maintaining formal diplomatic relations with it declined substantially. Nevertheless, Taiwan has maintained its own government, military, judicial system, currency, and electoral system, and has continued to exercise effective governance over an extended period. This demonstrates that “international recognition” and “effective governance” do not necessarily coincide.⁸³
Therefore, when evaluating the legitimacy of a state, it is necessary to consider not only international recognition but also effective governance, domestic legitimacy, democratic institutions, and other relevant factors in a comprehensive manner.
This study conceptualizes this situation as a “dual legitimacy structure.” In other words:
People’s Republic of China
→ International recognition, representation in international organizations, and effective governance over mainland China
Republic of China
→ Effective governance in Taiwan, democratic governance, and independent political institutions
Thus, distinct structures of legitimacy exist.
Of course, this does not equate the state status of the two entities. Rather, it demonstrates that different axes of legitimacy—particularly “international recognition” and “effective governance”—may coexist.⁸⁴
From this perspective, the change in UN representation in 1971 was a major turning point in the legitimacy competition over who represented “China” in the international community.
However, it did not eliminate the effective governance exercised by the ROC government in Taiwan.
This is the source of much of the complexity surrounding the contemporary Taiwan issue.
5-7 Analysis of This Study
International Legitimacy and Historical Continuity
From the perspective of comparison with the history of Chinese dynasties, this study positions the change in UN representation in 1971 as a turning point in the transformation of “legitimacy as viewed by the international community” in the modern era.
However, this does not equate dynastic succession with the international legal recognition of governments.
In the history of successive Chinese dynasties, when a new dynasty replaced an old one, factors such as domestic political control, military victory, the Mandate of Heaven, the legitimacy of the emperor, and historical succession carried significant meaning.
By contrast, in the modern international community, the legitimacy of states and governments is shaped not only by domestic governance but also by their status within international organizations, diplomatic recognition by other states, international law, treaty relations, and other factors.
Accordingly, the change in UN representation in 1971 constituted a historically significant turning point in the competition over the legitimacy of “China” in the modern international system.
However, this study focuses particularly on the fact that international legitimacy and cultural and historical continuity do not necessarily move in the same direction.
While the PRC acquired representation of “China” at the United Nations in 1971, the ROC government continued to exercise effective governance in Taiwan.
Furthermore, the National Palace Museum in Taipei preserves important cultural artifacts originating from successive Chinese dynasties. This demonstrates that:
- international representation;
- effective state governance; and
- historical and cultural continuity
may exist on different levels.⁸⁵ This study therefore analyzes them as three distinct axes without conflating them.
The first is international legitimacy. This is formed through mechanisms such as representation at the United Nations and diplomatic recognition by national governments.
The second is legitimacy based on effective governance. This derives from the actual ability to govern a territory and maintain state functions, including administration, the judiciary, the military, and the economy.
The third is historical and cultural continuity. This concerns how a state or society inherits its history, culture, and civilization from the past and uses them to construct its identity.⁸⁶
These three axes do not necessarily converge completely in a single political entity.
Therefore, contemporary cross-Strait relations must be understood as a structure in which the question of “who represents China?” in terms of international representation overlaps with the historical and cultural question of “who inherits Chinese civilization?”
In this sense, the cultural artifacts of the National Palace Museum represent historical continuity on a dimension distinct from international legal recognition of a state.⁸⁷⁻⁸⁸
The cultural artifacts preserved at the National Palace Museum in Taipei convey the historical memory of Chinese court culture, particularly that of the Ming and Qing dynasties. By contrast, the Palace Museum in Beijing inherits the political space of a dynasty itself, namely the Forbidden City.
Thus, the two Palace Museums in Beijing and Taipei may also be understood, beyond their political rivalry, as two cultural centers preserving different aspects of the historical heritage of Chinese civilization.⁸⁹
Here lies the central concern of this study.
The transfer of international representation does not necessarily mean the transfer of historical and cultural continuity.⁹⁰ The change in UN representation in 1971 significantly transformed the legitimacy competition over international representation of “China.” However, the inheritance of history and culture has proceeded along a different temporal trajectory.
The fact that these two different forms of legitimacy overlap is one of the factors that makes contemporary cross-Strait relations so complex.⁹¹
Summary of Chapter 5
UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 constituted a historic turning point through which the PRC acquired the position of representing “China” at the United Nations.
The ROC, which had previously held China’s representation at the United Nations, lost its seat. As a result, the international competition over representation between the “two Chinas” that had continued since 1949 underwent a major transformation.
Subsequently, through the rapprochement between the United States and China in 1972, the normalization of US-China diplomatic relations in 1979, and the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, the position of Taiwan in the international community also changed.
Today, many countries maintain diplomatic relations with the PRC and adopt a “One China policy.” However, the “One China policy” of each country is not necessarily identical to the “One China principle” advocated by the PRC.
In particular, with regard to UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, it is necessary to distinguish between the question of “who holds China’s representation” and the question of “how Taiwan’s legal status should be understood.”
This study conceptualizes legitimacy through multiple dimensions:
- International legitimacy;
- Legitimacy based on effective governance; and
- Historical and cultural continuity.
From this perspective, the change in UN representation in 1971 was a turning point in the legitimacy competition over who represented “China” in the international community.
However, it did not eliminate the ROC’s effective governance in Taiwan or the existence of historical and cultural heritage associated with Chinese civilization preserved in Taiwan.
Therefore, contemporary cross-Strait relations must be understood as a complex issue in which multiple forms of legitimacy overlap, including historical legitimacy, international recognition, effective governance, democratic legitimacy, and cultural and civilizational continuity.
This study argues that underlying this issue are two distinct logics: a political culture that has emphasized “legitimacy” since the era of the Chinese dynasties, and the modern international order based on state recognition and representation within international organizations.
The contemporary Taiwan issue lies at the intersection of these two different logics.
Chapter 5 — Footnotes
69 For the ROC’s participation as a permanent member of the UN Security Council from the establishment of the United Nations following the Second World War, see official United Nations materials and studies on the postwar international order.
70 For the historical circumstances under which the PRC was not a member of the United Nations after 1949 while the ROC government retained China’s representation, see historical records of the United Nations and studies of modern Chinese diplomatic history.
71 For the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s and changes in relations between China and the Soviet Union, see studies of Cold War history and Sino-Soviet relations.
72 For UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, adopted on October 25, 1971, see official United Nations documents. Under the resolution, the representatives of the Government of the PRC were recognized as the only lawful representatives of China, while the representatives of the ROC government lost their position as China’s representatives at the United Nations.
73 This study adopts the interpretation that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 determined the issue of “China’s representation” but did not explicitly determine “Taiwan’s legal status.” However, because differences exist among international legal scholarship, foreign policy interpretations, and the official positions of individual governments, the final version of this study should distinguish clearly between official UN documents and the official interpretations of individual governments.
74 For President Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 and the Shanghai Communiqué, see US diplomatic history materials and studies of US-China relations. Kissinger played an important role in the rapprochement between the United States and China.
75 For the normalization of US-China diplomatic relations in 1979, see US diplomatic history materials and the US-China Joint Communiqué. The United States recognized the Government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China and terminated formal diplomatic relations with the ROC.
76 The Taiwan Relations Act was enacted by the US Congress in 1979. The Act established a legal framework for maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan and provided the policy framework for US support concerning Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.
77 The PRC’s Anti-Secession Law was enacted in 2005. While establishing peaceful reunification as the basic policy concerning the Taiwan issue, the law provides for the possibility of adopting “non-peaceful means” under certain conditions.
78 The “One China principle” is the political and diplomatic position adopted by the Government of the PRC and must be distinguished from the “One China policies” adopted by individual countries.
79 The political position of the ROC (Taiwan) has changed substantially since 1949. In the early postwar period, it maintained the position of a government representing all of China. Following democratization, however, there has been a growing emphasis on effective governance in Taiwan and democratic political institutions.
80 Political positions concerning unification, independence, and maintaining the status quo in Taiwan are not uniform and vary among political parties and social groups. This study treats these differences as diverse political positions within Taiwanese society.
81 The “One China policies” of major countries, including the United States, are not necessarily identical to the PRC’s “One China principle.” The policies of individual countries have developed as comprehensive policy frameworks encompassing diplomatic recognition, security, peace in the Taiwan Strait, and economic relations.
82 The distinction between “domestic legitimacy” and “international legitimacy” in this study constitutes an analytical framework for avoiding an assessment of state legitimacy based on a single criterion.
83 The change in UN representation in 1971 significantly enhanced the international position of the PRC, but it did not mean that the ROC lost its effective governance over Taiwan.
84 “International recognition” and “effective governance” are mutually related but distinct concepts. This study analyzes the case of Taiwan by distinguishing between these two concepts.
85 This study treats the PRC’s possession of China’s representation at the United Nations and the issue of Taiwan’s legal status as separate questions.
86 The classification of legitimacy into three axes—“international legitimacy,” “legitimacy based on effective governance,” and “historical and cultural continuity”—constitutes an analytical framework developed specifically for this study.
87 The concepts of the “Mandate of Heaven” and “dynastic revolution” in Chinese dynastic history differ historically and institutionally from the international legal recognition of governments in the modern era. This study does not equate the two but uses them as analytical perspectives for comparing the political-cultural concept of “legitimacy.”
88 The historical and cultural continuity represented by the cultural artifacts of the National Palace Museum and the international legal recognition of states belong to different dimensions. This study does not regard the existence of these artifacts as direct proof of the legal legitimacy of any modern state.
89 The interpretation that the National Palace Museum in Taipei and the Palace Museum in Beijing preserve and exhibit different aspects of Chinese civilization is based on the analytical framework of this study.
90 The proposition that “the transfer of international representation does not necessarily mean the transfer of historical and cultural continuity” constitutes one of the central analytical hypotheses of this study.
91 Analyzing contemporary cross-Strait relations along three axes—“international representation,” “effective governance,” and “historical and cultural continuity”—constitutes a fundamental framework for the legitimacy analysis developed throughout this study.
Chapter 6 The Formation of Taiwanese Society and Identity
— Democratization and the Emergence of a “Taiwanese” Identity —
6-1 The Historical Background of Taiwanese Society
Chapter 5 examined the process by which “international legitimacy to represent China” shifted from the Republic of China (ROC) to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 serving as a major turning point. However, the change in international representation did not erase the political and social realities that had developed within Taiwanese society.
To understand Taiwanese society, it is necessary to examine not only questions of international representation and state recognition, but also the historical experiences shared by the people living in Taiwan and the kind of society they have developed over time.
Since the seventeenth century, Taiwan has experienced Dutch rule, the Zheng regime, Qing dynasty rule, and Japanese colonial rule before coming under the administration of the Republic of China in 1945. This complex history of successive regimes contributed to the formation of multiple cultural and historical layers within Taiwanese society.⁹²
In 1949, following the Chinese Civil War between the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the People’s Republic of China was established on the Chinese mainland, and the ROC government relocated to Taiwan. During this process, large numbers of people—including military personnel, government officials, intellectuals, businesspeople, and ordinary civilians—moved from mainland China to Taiwan. Although estimates of the number of migrants vary depending on the sources and criteria used, it is widely recognized that this represented a large-scale movement of population, including military personnel, their families, and government officials.⁹³
These migrants came to be generally known as “waishengren” (Mainlanders), and were distinguished from the “benshengren” (native Taiwanese), referring primarily to Han Chinese populations who had already been living in Taiwan, including people of Fujianese and Hakka origin. Taiwan is also home to Indigenous peoples with histories and cultures distinct from those of the Han Chinese population.
Thus, postwar Taiwanese society developed through the overlapping of several social groups: people who had long resided in Taiwan, those who migrated from mainland China around 1949, and the Indigenous peoples of Taiwan.
This social structure represented more than a simple difference in population composition. Because Mainlanders occupied important positions in the state apparatus, including politics, administration, the military, and education—during the early postwar period, political and social tensions emerged between them and the native Taiwanese population.
Therefore, in order to understand contemporary Taiwanese identity, it is important to examine not only cross-Strait relations after 1949, but also the social distinction between “waishengren” and “benshengren” that developed within postwar Taiwanese society.
6-2 Mainlanders and Native Taiwanese
In postwar Taiwan, following the relocation of the ROC government, many Mainlanders who had migrated from mainland China were appointed to positions in state institutions, including the administration, military, police, judiciary, and education sectors. By contrast, although native Taiwanese constituted the majority of the population, their participation in state power tended to be limited during the early postwar period.⁹⁴
This political and social structure contributed to what became known as the “provincial origin conflict” (shengji maodun) in Taiwanese society. The distinction between Mainlanders and native Taiwanese was not simply an ethnic division; rather, it was a historical social division shaped by a complex combination of migration patterns, political positions, and social experiences.
The February 28 Incident of 1947 was an extremely important event in the history of postwar Taiwan. The causes of the incident are understood to have included multiple factors, such as dissatisfaction with postwar administrative governance, economic instability, and social tensions. Following the outbreak of the incident, the Nationalist government carried out a military crackdown, resulting in a large number of casualties.⁹⁵
The February 28 Incident left deep scars on Taiwanese society. Furthermore, under the martial-law regime that continued for decades after 1949, political and freedom-of-expression activities were severely restricted, and the authorities suppressed anti-government activities. This period subsequently came to be remembered as an era of political repression known as the “White Terror.”⁹⁶
These historical experiences had a profound impact on political memory and identity formation within Taiwanese society.
For many years, however, it was difficult to openly discuss and assess the February 28 Incident and the White Terror. Following the democratization process that began in earnest in the late 1980s, historical reassessment of these events progressed, accompanied by efforts to restore the honor of victims, provide compensation, and make historical records publicly accessible.⁹⁷
This process went beyond a mere reexamination of the past. It was also connected to the fundamental question of how Taiwanese society should remember its own history and what kind of political community it should construct.
In this sense, Taiwan’s democratization was not merely a process of political institutional reform. It was also a process of reconstructing historical perceptions of the fundamental question: “What is Taiwanese society?”
6-3 Economic Development and the “Taiwan Miracle”
Despite political and social tensions, Taiwan experienced rapid economic development from the 1960s through the 1980s.
Taiwan pursued an export-oriented industrialization strategy and, supported by government industrial policies, investment in education, and infrastructure development, developed industries including electronics, precision machinery, and chemicals. This period of rapid economic growth is generally referred to as the “Taiwan Miracle.”⁹⁸
The formation of human capital was particularly important to Taiwan’s economic development. In addition to expanding access to primary and secondary education, the government increased investment in higher education and science and engineering programs, actively promoting the development of human resources in science and technology.
As a result, Taiwan developed a manufacturing base centered on small and medium-sized enterprises, while export industries expanded. From the 1980s onward, advanced industries such as semiconductors and information and communications technology (ICT) also grew rapidly, making Taiwan an important industrial hub in the global economy.⁹⁹
The development of the semiconductor industry, in particular, became a major factor in enhancing Taiwan’s international position. Today, Taiwanese companies occupy critical positions in the global semiconductor supply chain, and Taiwan’s economic stability is closely connected not only to the stability of East Asia but also to that of the global economy.
This economic development also transformed the structure of Taiwanese society itself.
In the early postwar period, political power and social background had a significant influence on identity formation. However, as economic growth, urbanization, the expansion of higher education, and generational change progressed, people’s social experiences became increasingly diverse.
In particular, as generations born and raised in Taiwan after 1949 came to occupy the center of society, a new generational consciousness emerged that could no longer be explained solely through the categories of “Mainlander” and “native Taiwanese.”
This transformation subsequently became an important social background contributing to the formation of a Taiwanese identity.
6-4 The Road to Democratization
Taiwan’s political transformation accelerated in earnest from the late 1980s.
In 1987, the government under Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law, which had remained in effect for approximately 38 years. This marked the beginning of rapid political reforms, with freedoms of speech, publication, assembly, and association expanding significantly.¹⁰⁰
Subsequently, under the administration of Lee Teng-hui, constitutional and political reforms were advanced, bringing major changes to Taiwan’s political system. Reforms of the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan, as well as the development of the presidential electoral system, progressed, and in 1996 Taiwan held its first direct presidential election.¹⁰¹
This democratization fundamentally transformed the structure of political participation in Taiwanese society.
Social groups whose access to political power had previously been restricted were able to express their political preferences through elections. At the same time, competition among political parties intensified, and a competitive democratic political system centered on the Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) emerged.
In 2000, Chen Shui-bian of the DPP became president, marking the first time in Taiwan’s history that a political party other than the Kuomintang formed the government. Since then, changes in government have repeatedly taken place, and peaceful transfers of power through elections have become institutionalized within Taiwan’s political system.¹⁰²
The process of democratization changed more than Taiwan’s political institutions. It also enabled the people of Taiwan to discuss freely their own history, society, culture, and vision for the future.
As a result, within Taiwanese society, an understanding of the political community centered on Taiwan itself gradually became stronger, alongside—and in some respects in place of—the traditional conception of the Republic of China as a state representing all of China.
Thus, Taiwan’s democratization can be regarded as a historical turning point that not only transformed its political institutions but also accelerated changes in the way Taiwanese society understood itself.
6-5 The Formation of a Taiwanese Identity
As democratization progressed and generations changed, significant changes also occurred in how residents of Taiwan perceived their own identities.
Various public opinion surveys have shown a long-term increase in the proportion of respondents who identify themselves as “Taiwanese,” while the proportion identifying themselves exclusively as “Chinese” has tended to decline.¹⁰³
Several factors have contributed to this transformation.
The first is that generations born and raised in Taiwan after 1949 have come to constitute the majority of society.
For these generations, their everyday political and social experiences have been centered on Taiwan. Consequently, in terms of self-identification, there has been a growing tendency to place greater emphasis on lived experiences and political institutions within Taiwanese society than on historical relations with mainland China.
The second factor is the development of Taiwan’s distinctive political institutions and civil society through democratization.
Through experiences of free elections, changes in government, freedom of expression, and civic activism, Taiwanese society has developed a sense of itself as a political community sharing democratic values.
The third factor is the growing interest in Taiwan’s history and local communities through education and the media.
Taiwanese history education has increasingly incorporated not only traditional perspectives centered on Chinese history but also Taiwanese history, Indigenous history, the history of the Japanese colonial period, and postwar Taiwanese history.¹⁰⁴
Such changes in historical consciousness are believed to have influenced the formation of a “Taiwanese” self-identity. However, it would be inappropriate to divide Taiwanese society simplistically into two categories: “Taiwanese” and “Chinese.”
There are people in Taiwan who identify themselves as Taiwanese while also affirming historical and cultural connections with Chinese culture. There are also individuals who possess both Taiwanese and Chinese identities. Thus, identity in Taiwanese society is neither uniform nor static; rather, it has a multilayered and fluid structure.
It is important here not to equate the formation of a “Taiwanese identity” with the rejection of Chinese culture itself.
While political consciousness in Taiwanese society has increasingly emphasized Taiwan as a distinctive democratic political community, cultural aspects of society continue to share historical and cultural connections with Chinese civilization, including the Chinese writing system, classical Chinese literature, Confucian thought, and traditional arts.
In this sense, Taiwanese identity is characterized by the fact that “political self-identification” and “cultural continuity” do not necessarily coincide.
This is also related to the three analytical dimensions discussed in Chapter 5: “international legitimacy,” “effective governance,” and “historical and cultural continuity.”
In other words, even if political self-identification within Taiwanese society changes, this does not necessarily mean that historical and cultural continuity immediately disappears.
Understanding this point is essential to examining contemporary Taiwanese identity.
6-6 The National Palace Museum and Taiwanese Society
Taiwan’s National Palace Museum is one of the world’s leading cultural institutions, housing an extensive collection of Chinese art and cultural treasures. It preserves a vast body of artifacts representing the court cultures of successive Chinese dynasties.¹⁰⁵
While the museum plays an important role in preserving, researching, and exhibiting the history and culture of China’s dynasties, it also functions within Taiwanese society as a center for cultural diplomacy and international academic exchange.
As examined in Chapter 5, even after the ROC lost its representation of “China” at the United Nations in 1971, Taiwan continued to preserve important cultural treasures originating from successive Chinese dynasties.
This fact provides one example of how international representation and historical and cultural continuity can exist on different dimensions.
Since democratization, Taiwan has increasingly emphasized Taiwanese history in historical education, contributing to the development of a “Taiwan-centered” historical consciousness. At the same time, however, the National Palace Museum has continued to be maintained as an important cultural institution.
This demonstrates that, while Taiwanese society has developed politically as a distinctive democratic political community, it has not completely rejected its historical and cultural continuity with Chinese civilization.
From the analytical perspective presented in this book—“The Treasures of the National Palace Museum and Legitimacy”—the National Palace Museum has two distinct meanings.
First, it symbolizes the historical and cultural assets inherited by the Republic of China.
Second, it represents the cultural multilayered nature of contemporary Taiwanese society.
In other words, Taiwanese society has a multilayered structure in which it has developed its own democratic political system and civil society politically, while maintaining historical and cultural continuity with Chinese civilization at the cultural level. In this sense, the National Palace Museum can also be regarded as a cultural institution symbolizing the complexity of identity within Taiwanese society.¹⁰⁶
6-7 State, Culture, and Identity
As the preceding analysis makes clear, the Taiwan issue is not simply a territorial or security issue. It also encompasses fundamental questions such as: “What is a state?”, “What is a nation or ethnic community?”, “What is culture?”, and “What constitutes a political community?”
A state as a political institution, a society as a cultural community, and civilization as historical continuity are distinct concepts.
In contemporary Taiwan, democratization has fostered a political consciousness centered on Taiwan as a distinctive political community. At the same time, Taiwan continues to maintain historical and cultural continuity with Chinese civilization.
These two dimensions are not necessarily contradictory.
It is entirely possible for a society to maintain its own democratic political institutions while also preserving historical ties to a broader civilizational sphere.
Therefore, being “Taiwanese” and maintaining connections with Chinese culture are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather, a defining characteristic of contemporary Taiwanese society is that political identity, social identity, and cultural identity exist as distinct but overlapping layers.
Without understanding this multilayered identity structure, it is difficult to accurately understand the political debates within Taiwanese society concerning unification, independence, and the maintenance of the status quo.
This complexity must also be taken into account in international politics concerning Taiwan.
It is a fact that the political self-identification of Taiwanese society has changed. However, this does not necessarily mean that historical and cultural continuity has been rejected.
At the same time, the existence of cultural continuity with Chinese civilization does not negate Taiwan’s democratic political institutions or its distinctive social development.
Therefore, in order to understand Taiwanese society, it is necessary to move beyond the binary opposition of “China versus Taiwan” and distinguish among three different dimensions:
- Taiwan as a political community
- Chinese civilization as a cultural and historical community
- Taiwan’s position as a state or government within the international community
This perspective is also connected to the three analytical dimensions presented in Chapter 5: “international legitimacy,” “effective governance,” and “historical and cultural continuity.”
The essence of the Taiwan issue lies in the fact that these different axes of legitimacy and identity overlap within a single geographical and political space.
Summary of Chapter 6
Taiwanese society has developed its own distinctive society and political community through a historical process encompassing the complex history of governance since the seventeenth century, the relocation of the ROC government in 1949, postwar political repression, economic development, and democratization.
During the early postwar period, the social distinction between Mainlanders and native Taiwanese had a major influence on political and social relations. In particular, the February 28 Incident and the subsequent White Terror left a profound imprint on Taiwan’s political memory.¹⁰⁷
However, Taiwanese society underwent significant transformation through economic development and changes in its social structure from the 1960s onward, democratization beginning in the late 1980s, and generational change.
The establishment of democratic institutions, including the first direct presidential election in 1996, became an important catalyst in the development of a sense of political self-determination within Taiwanese society.
As a result, while the proportion of Taiwan’s population identifying as “Taiwanese” has increased, there remains an awareness of historical and cultural connections with Chinese culture.
For this reason, Taiwanese identity cannot be understood simply as a rejection of Chinese identity. Rather, contemporary Taiwanese society contains multiple overlapping identities:
- Politically: a distinctive democratic political community centered on Taiwan
- Socially: a civil society rooted in Taiwan
- Culturally: historical and cultural continuity with Chinese civilization
The National Palace Museum symbolizes this multilayered structure. It is both a cultural institution that preserves, researches, and exhibits cultural treasures originating from successive Chinese dynasties and a center for cultural diplomacy and international exchange in contemporary Taiwanese society.¹⁰⁸
Therefore, in understanding the formation of Taiwanese society, it is important to distinguish between “political identity” and “cultural continuity.”
In Chapter 5, this book presented three analytical dimensions: “international legitimacy,” “effective governance,” and “historical and cultural continuity.”
Chapter 6 adds a fourth dimension: “political and social identity.”
In other words, in order to understand contemporary Taiwan, it is necessary to examine the following four dimensions in relation to one another:
- International legitimacy
- Legitimacy derived from effective governance
- Historical and cultural continuity
- Political and social identity
The complexity of the Taiwan issue lies in the fact that these four dimensions do not necessarily move in the same direction.
This complex structure is one of the most important characteristics that must be understood in analyzing contemporary Taiwan.
The next chapter will build upon the transformation of Taiwanese society examined here and explore the relationship between history and the present in the context of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” China’s policy toward national unification, the geopolitics of the Taiwan Strait, and the question of legitimacy in contemporary China.
In doing so, three central dimensions will intersect: “international legitimacy,” discussed in Chapter 5; the “political and social identity of Taiwanese society,” discussed in Chapter 6; and “historical and cultural continuity,” the central theme of this book as a whole.
Chapter 6 Notes
92 For the history of governance in Taiwan since the seventeenth century, see scholarship on the period of Dutch rule, the Zheng regime, Qing dynasty rule, Japanese colonial rule, and postwar ROC administration.
93 For the relocation of the ROC government and related populations to Taiwan around 1949, see studies of modern and contemporary Taiwanese history, the history of the Chinese Nationalist Party, and the Chinese Civil War. Estimates of the number of migrants vary depending on the population groups and statistical criteria included; therefore, this study does not assert a specific figure.
94 For the political and social relationship between Mainlanders and native Taiwanese in postwar Taiwan, see studies of postwar Taiwanese history and the issue known as “provincial origin conflict” (shengji maodun).
95 For the February 28 Incident, see relevant Taiwanese government materials, studies of the February 28 Incident, and research on modern and contemporary Taiwanese history. Estimates of the number of victims vary among researchers and sources.
96 For the martial-law regime after 1949 and the “White Terror,” see studies of Taiwanese political history, political repression during the martial-law period, and political prisoners.
97 For the reassessment of the February 28 Incident and the White Terror following Taiwan’s democratization from the late 1980s onward, as well as the restoration of victims’ honor and compensation, see relevant Taiwanese government materials and studies of transitional justice.
98 For Taiwan’s economic development and the “Taiwan Miracle,” see studies of Taiwanese economic history, developmental-state theory in East Asia, and export-oriented industrialization.
99 For the development of Taiwan’s semiconductor and ICT industries, see studies of Taiwanese industrial policy, the history of the semiconductor industry, and global supply chains.
100 For the lifting of martial law in Taiwan in 1987 and the subsequent democratization process, see official Taiwanese government materials and research on Taiwanese political history.
101 For Taiwan’s first direct presidential election in 1996, see official materials from Taiwan’s Central Election Commission and studies of Taiwanese democratization.
102 For Taiwanese politics following the change of government in 2000, see studies of Taiwan’s electoral history and party politics.
103 For public opinion surveys concerning identity among Taiwan’s residents, see long-term surveys on Taiwanese and Chinese identity conducted by institutions such as the Election Study Center at National Chengchi University.
104 For changes in historical education and the teaching of Taiwanese history, see studies of the history of education in Taiwan, history textbooks, and curriculum reform.
105 For the collections of the National Palace Museum and the culture of successive Chinese dynasties, see official materials from the National Palace Museum and research on Chinese art history and East Asian cultural history.
106 The interpretation of the National Palace Museum as an institution demonstrating the multilayered relationship between historical and cultural continuity and contemporary identity in Taiwanese society is based on the analytical framework of this study.
107 For the impact of the February 28 Incident and the White Terror on political memory and identity formation in Taiwanese society, see research on transitional justice, memory politics, and social history in Taiwan.
108 For the role of the National Palace Museum as a center for cultural diplomacy, international exchange, and academic research, see official materials from the museum and studies of international cultural exchange.
Chapter 7 Contemporary China and the Taiwan Issue
— The Intersection of Dynastic Succession, Civilization, and Geopolitics —
7-1 21st-Century China and the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation”
Entering the 21st century, China has achieved rapid economic growth against the backdrop of its reform and opening-up policies, significantly increasing its presence in the global economy. In addition to the expansion of its economic scale, China has also expanded its international influence in areas such as military power, science and technology, space development, artificial intelligence, and infrastructure development.¹⁰⁹
China’s rise is not limited to economic growth alone.
China views itself as being in the process of overcoming the “century of humiliation” that began in the modern era and restoring its historical position as a nation.
The Xi Jinping administration has established the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” as a national objective and presented its realization as the “Chinese Dream.” This vision is positioned as a long-term national strategy encompassing economic development, the enhancement of scientific and technological capabilities, the strengthening of military power, and improvements in the capacity for social governance.¹¹⁰
The Chinese Communist Party also regards the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 2049 as an important milestone and has set the realization of a “strong socialist modernized country” as a national objective. Within this national framework, the Taiwan issue occupies an important position.
For the Chinese government, the Taiwan issue is not merely a territorial dispute but is connected to multiple policy objectives, including national reunification, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national rejuvenation.
Therefore, in order to understand the position of the Taiwan issue in China, it is necessary to examine not only contemporary security policies but also how China understands its own history and what kind of national vision it seeks to construct.
From the perspective of “legitimacy,” which this book has examined throughout, there exists here a political culture that connects historical continuity with the legitimacy of the contemporary state.
In the history of Chinese dynasties, the legitimacy of state rule has been associated with the Mandate of Heaven, imperial rule, territorial control, and historical succession.
Contemporary China is not a dynastic state but was established as a modern nation-state and socialist state. Therefore, these concepts cannot simply be applied to the present day without modification.
Nevertheless, it is possible to argue that the political culture of linking historical national unity and the continuity of civilization with state legitimacy has exerted a certain influence on contemporary China’s conception of the state.
In this sense, the concept of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” can be understood not only as a goal of modern state-building but also as an ideological framework seeking to reconstruct the continuity between historical civilization and the state.
7-2 Taiwan Unification Policy and “One China”
Since its establishment in 1949, the People’s Republic of China has maintained “One China” as a fundamental principle of its foreign and national policies.
The Chinese government maintains that there is only one China in the world, that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China, and that the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government representing China.¹¹¹
This position is also connected to the change in international representation following United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971.
With regard to the Taiwan issue, the Chinese government has declared peaceful reunification to be its basic policy while clearly opposing Taiwan independence and “separatist activities” by external forces.
The Anti-Secession Law, enacted in 2005, formally articulated China’s policy position on the Taiwan issue in domestic law. While establishing peaceful reunification as the basic policy, the law provides for the possibility of adopting “non-peaceful means” under certain conditions.¹¹²
For this reason, the Taiwan issue is connected to multiple national objectives for China, including:
- National sovereignty
- Territorial integrity
- National reunification
- The rejuvenation of the Chinese nation
At the same time, Taiwan’s political self-perception and social structure have undergone significant changes since democratization.
As examined in Chapter 6, the number of people in Taiwanese society who identify as “Taiwanese” has increased, and the tendency to regard Taiwan as an independent political community has become stronger.¹¹³
At the same time, Taiwanese society contains diverse political positions regarding unification, independence, and maintaining the status quo. Therefore, it is not appropriate to understand the Taiwan issue simply as a binary confrontation between “China’s demand for unification” and “Taiwan’s demand for independence.”
Within Taiwanese society, many people place importance on maintaining the current political, economic, and social circumstances, resulting in a complex structure of public opinion concerning Taiwan’s future.
From this perspective, contemporary cross-Strait relations are an issue in which multiple factors overlap:
- China’s national reunification policy
- Taiwan’s political self-perception
- The foreign policies of the international community
- Security in the Taiwan Strait
Therefore, the overall picture of the contemporary Taiwan issue cannot be explained by the phrase “One China” alone. As discussed in Chapter 5, the “One China principle” of the People’s Republic of China and the “One China policies” of the United States and other countries are not necessarily identical.
These differences in policy have contributed to the complexity of contemporary international politics surrounding the Taiwan issue.
7-3 The Treasures of the Palace Museum and the “Succession of Civilization”
The treasures of the Palace Museum, which constitute the central subject of this book, can be understood not merely as works of art or historical materials but also as cultural heritage symbolizing the succession of Chinese civilization.
The National Palace Museum in Taipei houses a vast collection of cultural artifacts originating from successive Chinese dynasties, including precious cultural properties that convey the court culture of the Ming and Qing dynasties.¹¹⁴
These cultural properties are important materials that transmit the historical memory of Chinese civilization to the present day.
By contrast, the Palace Museum in Beijing is based on the Forbidden City itself, which served as the imperial palace during the Ming and Qing periods, and is a cultural institution that preserves the political space and court culture of imperial China.¹¹⁵
In this sense, although the two Palace Museums in Taipei and Beijing exist under different states and political systems, they may also be regarded culturally as two centers that preserve and present the history of Chinese civilization in different forms.
Here, this book focuses on the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949.
In general, this transfer of cultural artifacts has been explained as an effort to protect important cultural properties from the destruction of war amid the Chinese Civil War and political turmoil.¹¹⁶
However, in addition to this explanation, this study presents as an analytical hypothesis the possibility that the then-government of the Republic of China also sought to symbolically preserve the historical and cultural continuity extending from China’s successive dynasties.
This interpretation does not reduce the purpose of the transfer of cultural artifacts to a purely political intention.
The practical objective of protecting cultural properties and the political and cultural significance of symbolizing historical continuity are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Nevertheless, multiple interpretations exist concerning this issue. Therefore, this book does not assert that “the transfer of the Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan directly proved the legitimacy of the Republic of China.” Rather, it analyzes the possibility that the existence of these cultural properties carried political-cultural significance as symbols of historical continuity.¹¹⁷ This distinction is extremely important.
International legal recognition of a state and the historical and cultural continuity symbolized by cultural properties are different concepts.
Even if the representation of “China” in the United Nations shifted to the People’s Republic of China in 1971, this did not diminish the cultural value of the historical artifacts preserved in Taipei.
Likewise, the fact that the cultural properties of the National Palace Museum in Taipei convey the history of Chinese civilization does not, in itself, determine Taiwan’s statehood or status under international law.
Accordingly, this book positions the Palace Museum artifacts not as “evidence proving the legal legitimacy of a state,” but as “cultural assets symbolizing historical and cultural continuity.”
From this perspective, the National Palace Museum in Taipei and the Palace Museum in Beijing can be understood as two cultural centers that preserve different aspects of Chinese civilization beyond their political differences.
7-4 The Taiwan Strait and Geopolitics
In considering the contemporary Taiwan issue, it is impossible to ignore not only historical and cultural factors but also geographical and geopolitical elements.
The Taiwan Strait lies between mainland China and Taiwan and constitutes an important area for maritime transportation in East Asia.
The waters surrounding Taiwan are connected to maritime routes linking Japan, South Korea, China, and Southeast Asia, and their stability has significant implications for the regional economy.¹¹⁸
Taiwan also occupies an important position in the global semiconductor industry. Semiconductors have become foundational technologies indispensable to the modern economy and national security, supporting smartphones, computers, automobiles, artificial intelligence, telecommunications equipment, and defense systems.
As a result, stability in the Taiwan Strait is no longer merely a matter of regional security but has become an issue directly connected to global supply chains and economic security.¹¹⁹
For this reason, the Taiwan issue is not solely a matter between China and Taiwan. For Japan, the United States, European countries, Southeast Asian nations, and many other countries, peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait have become important diplomatic and security concerns.
Furthermore, in recent years, competition surrounding the Taiwan issue has expanded beyond the military domain.
- Cyberattacks
- Information warfare
- Cognitive warfare
- Economic sanctions
- Export controls on critical materials
- Semiconductor supply chains
- Energy security
Competition in these non-military domains has also become increasingly important.¹²⁰ This situation demonstrates that the Taiwan issue has evolved into a complex, multidimensional security issue characteristic of the 21st century.
Military deterrence is important, but it alone cannot ensure stability in the Taiwan Strait. It is necessary to consider comprehensively a wide range of policy areas, including economic interdependence, supply-chain resilience, cybersecurity, and stability in the information environment.
In this sense, the Taiwan issue is a quintessential contemporary international issue at the intersection of multiple domains, including history, culture, international law, security, and economics.
7-5 History and the Contemporary Meaning of “Legitimacy”
Throughout this book, we have argued that the concept of “legitimacy” is important for understanding China’s political culture.
In the history of Chinese dynasties, the legitimacy of dynastic succession was explained through concepts such as the Mandate of Heaven and the dynastic revolution. When one dynasty declined and a new dynasty was established, the new dynasty claimed that it had received the Mandate of Heaven and was therefore the legitimate ruler.
However, the modern international state system is based on principles different from those of dynastic states.
Following the collapse of the Qing dynasty in the Xinhai Revolution and the establishment of the Republic of China, China transitioned into a modern republican state. Subsequently, following the Chinese Civil War, two political systems emerged: the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China.
Unlike the dynastic era, during this process the legitimacy of a state came to be constituted by multiple factors, including:
- Constitutions and legal systems
- Effective governance
- Popular support
- Democratic legitimacy
- International recognition
- Status within international organizations
¹²¹Therefore, it is not appropriate to equate the dynastic concepts of the “Mandate of Heaven” and “dynastic revolution” with international legal recognition of governments in the contemporary state system.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that historical symbols and cultural heritage continue to possess political significance.
States are constituted not merely by territory and government; their political identities are also shaped by how they understand their own history and which civilization they perceive themselves as inheriting.
From this perspective, the treasures of the Palace Museum do not directly prove the legitimacy of a contemporary state, but they constitute an important symbol of historical and cultural continuity.
Herein lies the complexity of “legitimacy” in the contemporary Taiwan issue. In other words, multiple forms of legitimacy exist:
- International legitimacy
- Legitimacy derived from effective governance
- Democratic legitimacy
- Historical and cultural continuity
These forms of legitimacy do not necessarily converge in a single political entity. Understanding this structure is a key to understanding the contemporary Taiwan issue from a historical perspective.
7-6 Comprehensive Analysis of This Study
— The Taiwan Issue Viewed Through Four Axes of Legitimacy —
From Chapters 5 through 7, this book has analyzed the Taiwan issue not merely as a territorial or security issue but from the long-term perspectives of “legitimacy” and “the succession of civilization.”
As a result, we argue that at least four analytical axes must be distinguished in order to understand contemporary cross-Strait relations.
The first is international legitimacy.
This is formed through representation in the United Nations, diplomatic recognition by individual governments, and participation in international organizations. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 was a historical turning point that significantly altered the structure surrounding international legitimacy.
The second is legitimacy derived from effective governance.
This is based on the actual ability to govern a territory and maintain state functions, including administration, the judiciary, the military, and the economy. In Taiwan, the government of the Republic of China has maintained its own administrative, judicial, military, monetary, and electoral systems over an extended period.¹²²
The third is historical and cultural continuity.
This concerns how states and societies inherit and preserve their past history, culture, and civilization. The cultural artifacts of successive Chinese dynasties preserved at the National Palace Museum in Taipei symbolize this historical and cultural continuity.
The fourth is political and social identity.
This concerns how the people living in a particular society perceive themselves as members of a political community, society, ethnic group, or cultural sphere.
As discussed in Chapter 6, Taiwan’s political and social identity as “Taiwanese” has strengthened against the backdrop of democratization and generational change.
These four axes do not necessarily converge completely in a single political entity.
This is precisely what makes the contemporary Taiwan issue so complex. In other words:
People’s Republic of China
→ Effective governance over mainland China, representation of China in the United Nations, and diplomatic recognition by a majority of states
Republic of China
→ Effective governance in Taiwan, democratic political institutions, and a political community rooted in Taiwanese society
National Palace Museum in Taipei
→ Historical and cultural continuity originating from successive Chinese dynasties
Taiwanese society
→ Political and social identity centered on Taiwan
Thus, different axes of legitimacy overlap across different actors and institutions.
Of course, this framework does not equate the state status of the People’s Republic of China with that of the Republic of China. Nor does historical and cultural continuity directly determine state recognition under international law.
What this study seeks to demonstrate is that it is difficult to explain the contemporary Taiwan issue through a single criterion.
The question of “Who represents China?” as an issue of international representation,
the question of “Who effectively governs Taiwan?” as an issue of governance,
the question of “Who inherits Chinese civilization?” as a cultural question,
and the question of “How do the people of Taiwan perceive themselves as a political community?” as an issue of identity
are all different questions.
Yet these questions overlap within the same geographical and historical context.
This is where the fundamental complexity of the Taiwan issue lies.
7-7 “Succession of Civilization” and “State Legitimacy”
One of the most important issues examined throughout this book is how to distinguish between “the succession of civilization” and “the legitimacy of the state.”
Throughout history, states and dynasties have claimed to be the legitimate entities inheriting past civilizations.
In the history of Chinese dynasties, successive dynasties constructed the legitimacy of their rule while emphasizing historical continuity with preceding dynasties.
However, in the contemporary international community, the succession of civilization and the legal legitimacy of a state are not identical.
The international status of a state is formed through diplomatic recognition, international law, treaty relations, and participation in international organizations.
By contrast, the succession of civilization is formed through cultural properties, language, religion, thought, historical education, and collective memory.
Confusing these two concepts risks unnecessarily simplifying discussions surrounding the Taiwan issue.
The fact that the National Palace Museum in Taipei preserves important cultural properties of Chinese civilization does not determine Taiwan’s legal status.
Likewise, the fact that the Palace Museum in Beijing preserves the Forbidden City as a political space of the imperial dynasties does not, by itself, legally prove that it is the sole inheritor of Chinese civilization.
Cultural continuity is formed according to a different temporal framework and logic from state recognition.
In this sense, the central analytical hypothesis presented by this book is that “the transfer of representation in the international community does not necessarily mean the transfer of historical and cultural continuity.”¹²³
Through the change in representation at the United Nations in 1971, the People’s Republic of China acquired the position of “representative of China” in the international community. However, this did not erase the historical experiences of Taiwanese society.
Nor did it diminish the historical and cultural value of the artifacts preserved in Taipei.
At the same time, the political identity formed through the democratization of Taiwanese society does not completely eliminate its historical and cultural relationship with Chinese civilization.
This is why the contemporary Taiwan issue must be examined from two distinct dimensions: “civilization” and “the state.”
7-8 How Should We Understand the Contemporary Taiwan Issue?
The analysis above demonstrates that the contemporary Taiwan issue cannot be adequately explained by a simple binary confrontation between “China and Taiwan.”
The Taiwan issue contains multiple layers of interconnected factors, including:
- History
- Civilization
- State formation
- International law
- International recognition
- Effective governance
- Democracy
- Identity
- Security
- Economics
For China, the Taiwan issue concerns national reunification and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
For Taiwanese society, it concerns democratic political institutions and its own political and social identity.
For the United States, Japan, Europe, and Southeast Asian countries, it concerns regional security, the economic order, and the stability of international supply chains.
Furthermore, from the cultural perspective emphasized throughout this book, the Taiwan issue is also connected to the question of the historical succession of Chinese civilization.
Thus, the Taiwan issue should be understood not as a single problem but as a “complex international issue” in which multiple problems overlap.
Accordingly, policy discussions concerning Taiwan must distinguish among different domains—including historical understanding and international law, security and economics, and democracy and culture—while analyzing their interrelationships.
The purpose of this study is not to present a specific political conclusion concerning the Taiwan issue.
Rather, its objective is to achieve a more multidimensional understanding of the structure of the contemporary Taiwan issue by examining the concept of “legitimacy” through multiple axes:
- International legitimacy
- Effective governance
- Democratic legitimacy
- Historical and cultural continuity
- Political and social identity
This multidimensional perspective is essential for understanding the Taiwan issue historically, culturally, politically, and geopolitically.
Summary of Chapter 7
In the 21st century, China has rapidly expanded its economic, military, and technological capabilities and has established the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” as a national objective.
Within this framework, the Taiwan issue is connected to multiple national objectives, including national reunification, territorial integrity, sovereignty, and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.¹²⁴
At the same time, Taiwanese society has increasingly developed a tendency to regard Taiwan as an independent political community through democratization and generational change.
Amid these two political realities, the Taiwan Strait has become a geopolitically important region for both East Asian security and the global economy.
Moreover, the Taiwan issue has expanded beyond military confrontation into multiple domains, including cyberspace, information warfare, economic security, and semiconductor supply chains.
What this book particularly emphasizes is that behind these contemporary issues lies the question of history and civilization.
The National Palace Museum in Taipei and the Palace Museum in Beijing exist under different political systems, yet they can be regarded as cultural centers that preserve and present the history of Chinese civilization in different forms.
Furthermore, the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949 may have carried significance as a symbol of historical and cultural continuity in addition to the practical objective of protecting cultural properties. However, this is one of the analytical hypotheses of this study and is not asserted as an established historical fact.
This study has proposed the following four major axes of legitimacy and identity for understanding the contemporary Taiwan issue.
First, international legitimacy.
This is formed through representation in the United Nations and diplomatic recognition by individual countries.
Second, legitimacy derived from effective governance.
This is based on the actual ability to govern a territory and maintain state functions, including administration, the judiciary, the military, and the economy.
Third, historical and cultural continuity.
This concerns how states and societies inherit past civilizations, cultures, and histories.
Fourth, political and social identity.
This concerns how the people who constitute a society perceive themselves as members of a political community, society, or cultural sphere.
These four axes do not necessarily converge in a single political entity. This is one of the most important factors contributing to the complexity of the contemporary Taiwan issue.
The shift in China’s representation at the United Nations in 1971 significantly altered the legitimacy structure surrounding the question of who represents “China” in the international community. However, the transfer of international representation did not mean the transfer of historical and cultural continuity.
Likewise, the political identity formed through the democratization of Taiwanese society does not necessarily completely deny its historical and cultural continuity with Chinese civilization.
Therefore, contemporary cross-Strait relations must be understood as an issue in which multiple axes intersect:
- International legitimacy
- Effective governance
- Democratic legitimacy
- Historical and cultural continuity
- Political and social identity
The perspective of “the treasures of the Palace Museum and legitimacy” presented in this book provides one analytical framework for interpreting this complex structure.
The treasures of the Palace Museum do not directly prove the legal legitimacy of a state. However, they transmit the historical memory of Chinese civilization and constitute important symbols of cultural continuity.
The fact that international representation, effective governance, cultural continuity, and political identity are distributed among different actors and institutions is precisely one of the essential characteristics of the contemporary Taiwan issue.
In this sense, the Taiwan issue should not be viewed as a simple binary question of “who is right,” but rather as a question of how different forms of legitimacy overlap, compete, and coexist.
Beginning with the cultural heritage known as “the treasures of the Palace Museum,” this book has expanded its analysis to encompass the legitimacy of China’s dynasties, the modern Chinese revolution, the Chinese Civil War, representation at the United Nations, the democratization of Taiwanese society, Taiwanese identity, and contemporary geopolitics.
As a result, the Taiwan issue can be positioned not merely as a territorial or security issue but as one of the most complex international issues of the 21st century, where history, civilization, the state, international order, democracy, and identity intersect.
To understand this complex issue, it is essential to distinguish and comprehensively examine historical facts and political claims, legal status under international law and cultural continuity, and state legitimacy and social identity.
Chapter 7 Footnotes
109 Regarding China’s economic growth, military capabilities, scientific and technological development, and space development in the 21st century, this study refers to official Chinese government materials, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and international research on the Chinese economy and security.
110 Regarding the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and the “Chinese Dream,” this study refers to official documents of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government, policy speeches by the Xi Jinping administration, and research on Chinese political thought.
111 Regarding the “One China” principle of the People’s Republic of China and the government’s position on Taiwan, this study refers to official Chinese government documents and official statements by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other relevant authorities.
112 Regarding the Anti-Secession Law enacted in 2005, this study refers to legal materials of the People’s Republic of China and official Chinese government sources. The law establishes peaceful reunification as the basic policy regarding the Taiwan issue while providing for the possibility of adopting “non-peaceful means” under certain conditions.
113 Regarding changes in the identity of Taiwan’s residents, this study refers to long-term public opinion surveys conducted by institutions such as the Election Study Center at National Chengchi University, as well as research on Taiwanese politics and society.
114 Regarding the collections of the National Palace Museum in Taipei and the court culture of successive Chinese dynasties, this study refers to official materials of the National Palace Museum and research on Chinese art history and East Asian cultural history.
115 Regarding the historical and cultural value of the Palace Museum in Beijing and the Forbidden City, this study refers to official materials of the Palace Museum and research on Chinese architectural history and the history of Chinese dynasties.
116 Regarding the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949, this study refers to official materials of the National Palace Museum and research on modern and contemporary Chinese history, the history of the Chinese Civil War, and the history of cultural-property transfers.
117 The view that the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan should be understood not only as “the protection of cultural properties” but also as “an act symbolizing historical and cultural continuity” constitutes one of the analytical hypotheses of this study. This interpretation does not reduce the purpose of the transfer of cultural artifacts solely to political intentions but examines the possibility that cultural-property protection and political and cultural symbolism coexisted.
118 Regarding the geopolitical importance of the Taiwan Strait and maritime transportation in East Asia, this study refers to research on international shipping, East Asian security, and the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific region.
119 Regarding Taiwan’s semiconductor industry and global supply chains, this study refers to materials from international organizations and national governments concerning the semiconductor industry, as well as research on economic security.
120 Regarding cyberattacks, information warfare, cognitive warfare, economic security, export controls, and supply-chain issues surrounding the Taiwan Strait, this study refers to security policy documents issued by national governments and research on international security.
121 Regarding the components of legitimacy in contemporary states, this study refers to research in international law, political science, and international relations concerning state recognition, effective governance, and democratic legitimacy.
122 Regarding the effective governance exercised by the government of the Republic of China in Taiwan through its administrative, judicial, military, monetary, and electoral systems, this study refers to official Taiwanese government materials and research on Taiwan’s political institutions.
123 The proposition that “the transfer of representation in the international community does not necessarily mean the transfer of historical and cultural continuity” constitutes one of the central analytical hypotheses of this study.
124 Regarding the relationship between the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and the Taiwan issue, this study refers to official Chinese government policy documents, policy speeches by the Xi Jinping administration, and research on China’s Taiwan policy.
Final Chapter Conclusion
Today, the Taiwan issue is often discussed in the context of strategic competition between the United States and China and regional security. However, beneath this issue lies a complex historical background consisting of the political culture formed throughout the history of Chinese dynasties, the modern Chinese revolution, the Chinese Civil War, and changes in the postwar international order.¹²⁵
The treasures of the Palace Museum possess extraordinarily high value as world cultural heritage. At the same time, they symbolize the history of Chinese civilization and constitute cultural assets that have been valued by both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China.¹²⁶
Throughout this book, the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan has been examined not only through the conventional explanation of “cultural-property protection” but also through the analytical hypothesis that the transfer symbolized historical continuity. However, this interpretation is only one among several possible explanations and requires further verification through historical sources and comparative research.¹²⁷
The overall analysis of this book demonstrates that a single standard of “legitimacy” is insufficient for understanding the Taiwan issue.
International representation, actual territorial governance, democratic political institutions, historical and cultural continuity, and political and social identity within Taiwanese society each belong to different dimensions.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 significantly changed the international status of representation concerning “China.” However, this change in international representation did not erase the historical experiences of Taiwanese society or the historical and cultural value of the cultural properties preserved in Taiwan.
Nor did the democratization of Taiwanese society and the formation of a “Taiwanese” identity necessarily negate historical and cultural continuity with Chinese civilization.
Therefore, this book concludes that it is important to examine the Taiwan issue by relating the following multiple axes to one another.
The first is international representation and international legitimacy.
This concerns representation in the United Nations, diplomatic recognition by individual countries, and participation in international organizations.
The second is effective governance.
This concerns the ability to maintain state functions—including administration, the judiciary, the military, the economy, and currency—and to exercise effective governance over a territory.
The third is democratic legitimacy.
This refers to political legitimacy formed through elections, political participation, changes of government, civil society, and related processes.
The fourth is historical and cultural continuity.
This concerns the continuity of civilization and culture formed through cultural properties, history, language, thought, and collective memory.
The fifth is political and social identity.
This concerns how the people who constitute Taiwanese society perceive themselves as members of a particular political community, society, or cultural sphere.¹²⁸
These axes do not necessarily converge in a single political entity. Rather, the complexity of the contemporary Taiwan issue lies in the fact that these different forms of legitimacy and identity overlap within the same geographical and historical context.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that the Taiwan issue cannot be understood simply as a binary confrontation over “which side is right.”
It is a complex issue in which civilization, political culture, international order, state institutions, geopolitics, economics, security, and the transformation of Taiwanese society itself have become intertwined over the course of a long history.¹²⁹
The perspective of “the treasures of the Palace Museum and legitimacy” presented in this book constitutes one analytical framework for examining this complex issue.
The treasures of the Palace Museum do not directly prove the legal legitimacy of a state. However, they transmit the historical memory of Chinese civilization to the present day and constitute important cultural assets symbolizing historical and cultural continuity.
Therefore, when examining the Taiwan issue, it is necessary to distinguish among historical facts and political claims, legal status under international law and cultural continuity, and state legitimacy and social identity, while analyzing them comprehensively.
It is hoped that this book will contribute to a deeper understanding of the Taiwan issue from a multidimensional perspective encompassing history, culture, politics, law, and geopolitics.
Final Chapter Footnotes
125 The contemporary Taiwan issue is often discussed from the perspectives of U.S.-China relations, East Asian security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait. However, its historical background includes modern and contemporary Chinese history, the Chinese Civil War, and the formation and transformation of the postwar international order.
126 The Palace Museum artifacts possess significant value as cultural heritage symbolizing the historical and cultural continuity of Chinese civilization. However, their existence alone cannot be used to directly determine the legal legitimacy of a state.
127 The interpretation of the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan as “an act symbolizing historical continuity” constitutes an analytical hypothesis of this study and does not reject the conventional explanation that the transfer was undertaken for the purpose of protecting cultural properties.
128 As a conclusion of this study, the Taiwan issue must be analyzed through multiple overlapping axes: “international representation and international legitimacy,” “effective governance,” “democratic legitimacy,” “historical and cultural continuity,” and “political and social identity.”
129 The final analytical perspective of this study is to understand the Taiwan issue not as a simple binary confrontation but as a complex issue at the intersection of history, civilization, political institutions, international order, geopolitics, economics, security, and social identity.
Afterword (Research Institute Edition)
This report has examined the legitimacy of Chinese dynasties, the modern Chinese revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the Taiwan issue, and contemporary international politics within a single continuum of history, using the cultural treasures of the Palace Museum as a point of departure.¹³⁸
Throughout this book, the analysis has been conducted on the basis of a wide range of research findings, while carefully distinguishing between established historical facts and analytical hypotheses. In particular, regarding the relationship between “the treasures of the Palace Museum and legitimacy,” this study has considered not only the conventional explanation of cultural heritage preservation but also the perspectives of political culture and symbolism.¹³⁹
With regard to the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan, it has been confirmed that many valuable cultural objects were transported from mainland China to Taiwan between late 1948 and early 1949. These artifacts were preserved amid war and political turmoil and were subsequently conserved, researched, and exhibited in Taiwan. This transfer should primarily be understood as a measure intended to protect valuable cultural heritage from the destruction of war.¹⁴⁰
However, this study seeks to raise one further historical and cultural question. That question concerns the possibility that individuals on the Japanese side, particularly those associated with the former Japanese military, may have been involved in some form in the transportation or preservation of these cultural artifacts.¹⁴¹
Based on the official materials of the Palace Museum and Taiwanese sources that can currently be confirmed, there is insufficient primary evidence to conclude that “the Japanese military directly assisted in the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan.” In addition, records on the transfer of cultural artifacts between 1948 and 1949 indicate that transportation by naval vessels and merchant ships took place, but further detailed examination of historical sources is still required regarding the specific transportation routes and individuals involved.¹⁴²
Accordingly, this book does not present Japanese involvement as an established historical fact. Rather, it positions the possibility as a research question requiring further verification in future studies.¹⁴³
If historical sources were to confirm that Japanese individuals, personnel associated with the former Japanese military, or Japanese transportation and logistics personnel provided some form of assistance in the transfer or preservation of Palace Museum artifacts at that time, this would have considerable historical significance.¹⁴⁴
This is because such a finding could suggest that certain individuals on the Japanese side, transcending political and military confrontation, regarded the Palace Museum artifacts not merely as the property of a single country but as a shared cultural heritage of humanity inherited through the long history of Chinese civilization, and that they may have played a certain role in preserving that heritage and transmitting it to future generations.¹⁴⁵
Of course, it is not possible at the present stage to assert this interpretation as an established historical fact. However, if such facts were to be confirmed, the history of the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan could be reassessed not merely as a matter of political confrontation between China and Taiwan, but within the broader history of how East Asia as a whole, including Japan, has engaged with the cultural heritage of Chinese civilization.¹⁴⁶
From this perspective, the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts can be considered not only as a political question of “who represents China,” but also as a question in the history of civilization: “Who protects the memory of civilization, and who carries it forward to future generations?”¹⁴⁷
In the Chinese classics, there is the phrase “述而不作、信而好古” (“I transmit rather than create, and I have faith in and love antiquity”). This phrase appears in the Shu Er chapter of the Analects and is generally understood as expressing Confucius’ attitude of respecting ancient culture and traditions and passing them on to later generations. The Book of Rites (Liji) also contains the phrase “往而不来、来而不往、非礼也” (“If there is giving without receiving, or receiving without giving, that is contrary to propriety”), emphasizing the importance of mutual respect and reciprocity in culture and human relationships.¹⁴⁸
Viewed in the light of the spirit of these classical teachings, the inheritance of civilization does not simply mean that a state possesses cultural artifacts. Rather, it entails the responsibility to preserve, understand, and transmit to the future the culture inherited from the past.¹⁴⁹
From this perspective, the history surrounding the treasures of the Palace Museum raises a question that goes beyond “Who is the legitimate owner of Chinese civilization?” It poses a more universal question: “Who will protect the heritage of civilization, who will inherit it, and who will transmit it to future generations?”
If individuals on the Japanese side at that time did recognize the Palace Museum artifacts as important heritage of Chinese civilization and contributed to their preservation or transportation, this would constitute an important aspect of modern Japanese and Chinese history. It could indicate that, apart from political confrontation between states, there existed a historical continuity in efforts to protect the civilizational heritage of East Asia.¹⁵⁰
Accordingly, future research should examine not only sources from Taiwan and mainland China, but also Japanese military records, diplomatic documents, transportation records, and the diaries and memoirs of individuals involved. If Japanese involvement were confirmed as a result, it would add a new perspective from the history of civilization to the central theme of this study, “The Treasures of the Palace Museum and Legitimacy.”¹⁵¹
This study has placed particular importance on distinguishing historical facts from analytical hypotheses. In particular, the political and symbolic significance of the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan requires further verification through future archival and comparative research.¹⁵²
What this book ultimately seeks to present is not the simplistic argument that the Palace Museum artifacts themselves prove the legal legitimacy of a state. Rather, it seeks to demonstrate that cultural heritage preserves historical memory, symbolizes continuity of civilization, and may, at times, be inherited as a shared cultural heritage of humanity beyond the boundaries of individual states and political systems.¹⁵³
The history surrounding the treasures of the Palace Museum is not only a question of state legitimacy; it is also a question of the transmission and inheritance of civilization.
Moreover, those who preserve a civilization are not necessarily confined to a single state or political system.¹⁵⁴
From this perspective, the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan can be understood not merely as an episode in the political history of twentieth-century China, but also as a turning point in the historical transmission of Chinese civilization. It is hoped that future research will deepen the academic examination of this subject in light of newly discovered historical sources and further scholarly findings.¹⁵⁵
Footnotes to the Afterword
138 The discussion in this report concerning the relationship between “the treasures of the Palace Museum and legitimacy” connects the history of Chinese dynasties, the modern Chinese revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the Taiwan issue, and the postwar international order, analyzing the inheritance of cultural heritage, states, and civilization within a long-term historical continuum.
139 This study places particular importance on distinguishing historical facts from analytical hypotheses. Regarding the relationship between “the treasures of the Palace Museum and legitimacy,” it does not argue that the cultural artifacts themselves prove the legal legitimacy of a state. Rather, it analyzes the role of cultural heritage as a repository of historical memory and as a political symbol.
140 Regarding the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan between late 1948 and early 1949, reference is made to official materials from the National Palace Museum, as well as research on modern Chinese history, the history of the Chinese Civil War, and the history of cultural-property transfers. The transfer is generally understood as having been undertaken to preserve valuable cultural artifacts amid war and political turmoil.
141 The “possibility of involvement by the Japanese side, particularly personnel associated with the former Japanese military,” referred to here is not an established historical fact confirmed at the present time, but is presented as a research question to be examined through future archival research.
142 Regarding the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan between 1948 and 1949, Taiwanese records are said to indicate transportation by naval vessels and merchant ships. However, further verification is required concerning the individual vessels, routes, and persons involved, including the types of historical sources available and the locations of relevant records.
143 This study has not, at the present time, confirmed sufficient primary sources demonstrating that the Japanese side directly assisted in the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan. Therefore, Japanese involvement is not asserted as a historical fact but is positioned as a hypothetical research question requiring future verification.
144 If it is confirmed that Japanese individuals, personnel associated with the former Japanese military, or Japanese transportation and logistics personnel assisted in the transfer or preservation of Palace Museum artifacts, it will be necessary to identify, through primary sources, the specific individuals, organizations, time periods, transportation routes, and nature of the assistance provided.
145 The view that “the Japanese side at the time regarded the Palace Museum artifacts as the shared cultural heritage of humanity belonging to Chinese civilization” is not, at present, an established fact, but rather a hypothetical interpretation from the perspective of the history of civilization. Even if Japanese involvement were confirmed, the motivations and perceptions of those involved would require verification through official documents, military records, diplomatic documents, personal records, and other sources from the period.
146 If Japanese involvement were confirmed through historical sources, the history of the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan could be reconsidered within a broader framework encompassing not only the political history of mainland China and Taiwan, but also the wartime history of East Asia, including Japan, the history of cultural heritage preservation, and the history of civilizational exchange.
147 The question of “who represents China” concerns international representation and state recognition, whereas the question of “who protects and inherits the memory of civilization” concerns cultural and civilizational continuity. This study places particular importance on distinguishing between these two questions.
148 The phrase “述而不作、信而好古” from the Shu Er chapter of the Analects is generally understood as expressing an attitude of respecting ancient culture and traditions and transmitting them to later generations. The phrase “往而不来、来而不往、非礼也” from the Liji (Book of Rites), Liqi chapter, is known as an expression of the importance of exchange and reciprocity. In this study, these classical passages are referenced as an intellectual background for considering cultural inheritance and mutual respect. However, they are not presented as direct historical evidence concerning the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts.
149 The approach of defining “the inheritance of civilization” not merely as state ownership of cultural artifacts, but in a broader sense encompassing preservation, research, understanding, education, public access, and transmission to future generations, is based on the civilizational-historical analytical perspective adopted in this study.
150 The possibility that individuals on the Japanese side at the time recognized the Palace Museum artifacts as important heritage of Chinese civilization and assisted in their preservation or transportation remains an unconfirmed hypothesis at the present stage. Verification will require research into Japanese military and diplomatic records, transportation records, and personal diaries, letters, memoirs, and related materials.
151 Future research should conduct a cross-sectional examination not only of materials from Taiwan and mainland China, but also of Japanese defense and military records, diplomatic documents from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other institutions, maritime and transportation records, records of former Japanese military personnel, and personal documents of individuals involved.
152 This study does not reject the conventional explanation that the transfer of Palace Museum artifacts to Taiwan was intended to protect cultural heritage. Rather, it additionally examines the possibility of political and symbolic significance. In particular, with regard to possible Japanese involvement, the study clearly distinguishes between established historical facts and research hypotheses.
153 Palace Museum artifacts constitute important cultural heritage symbolizing the historical and cultural continuity of Chinese civilization. However, their existence in itself does not directly determine the legal legitimacy of a state or international recognition of statehood under international law.
154 The preservation and transmission of cultural heritage are not necessarily undertaken by a single state or political system alone. When cultural artifacts are preserved by multiple regions and societies despite wars, political divisions, and conflicts between states, the process of their transmission itself can be analyzed from the perspective of the history of civilization.
155 The final analytical framework of this study examines the question of legitimacy concerning China and Taiwan from multiple perspectives, including “international representation and international legitimacy,” “effective governance,” “democratic legitimacy,” “historical and cultural continuity,” and “political and social identity.” Future research is expected to further clarify the relationship between the transmission of cultural heritage and the political and civilizational history of East Asia by cross-referencing Chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese historical sources concerning the transfer and evacuation of Palace Museum artifacts.
Appendix 1: Chronological Table of Chinese Dynasties
| Period / Dynasty | Dates | Major Events / Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Xia | c. 2070–1600 BCE | Regarded as the earliest Chinese dynasty |
| Shang (Yin) | c. 1600–1046 BCE | Development of a sophisticated bronze civilization |
| Western Zhou | 1046–771 BCE | Formation of the concept of the Mandate of Heaven |
| Eastern Zhou | 770–256 BCE | Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods |
| Qin | 221–206 BCE | Establishment of China’s first unified empire |
| Former Han (Western Han) | 206 BCE–8 CE | Establishment of the foundations of the Han Empire |
| Xin | 9–23 CE | Dynasty established by Wang Mang |
| Later Han (Eastern Han) | 25–220 CE | Restoration of the Han dynasty |
| Three Kingdoms | 220–280 | Wei, Shu, and Wu existed in parallel |
| Western Jin | 265–316 | Temporary reunification of China |
| Eastern Jin | 317–420 | Continued to exist with its center in the Jiangnan region |
| Northern and Southern Dynasties | 420–589 | Confrontation between the Northern and Southern dynasties |
| Sui | 581–618 | Reunification of China and construction of the Grand Canal |
| Tang | 618–907 | Formation of an international order in East Asia |
| Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms | 907–960 | Period of political fragmentation |
| Northern Song | 960–1127 | Civil governance and economic development |
| Southern Song | 1127–1279 | Continued to exist with its center in the Jiangnan region |
| Yuan | 1271–1368 | Dynasty of Mongol origin |
| Ming | 1368–1644 | Han Chinese dynasty; capital established in Beijing |
| Qing | 1644–1912 | Last imperial dynasty, established by the Manchu |
| Republic of China | 1912–Present | Established following the Xinhai Revolution |
| People’s Republic of China | 1949–Present | Governs mainland China |
Note: Since the dates and historical existence of some ancient dynasties remain subjects of scholarly debate, this chronological table adopts generally accepted periodization.
Appendix 2: Chronological Table of the First and Second United Fronts and the Chinese Civil War
| Year | Event | Historical Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1911 | Wuchang Uprising | Beginning of the Xinhai Revolution |
| 1912 | Establishment of the Republic of China | Collapse of the Qing dynasty and establishment of a republican system |
| 1919 | May Fourth Movement | Rise of Chinese nationalism |
| 1921 | Founding of the Chinese Communist Party | Organization of communist political forces |
| 1924 | First United Front | Cooperation between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) |
| 1926 | Beginning of the Northern Expedition | Campaign aimed at defeating warlords and achieving national unification |
| 1927 | Shanghai Coup | Collapse of the First United Front |
| 1927 | Nanchang Uprising | Beginning of full-scale armed struggle by the Chinese Communist Party |
| 1931 | Manchurian Incident | Expansion of Japanese influence into northeastern China |
| 1934–1935 | Long March | Reorganization and consolidation of Communist forces |
| 1936 | Xi’an Incident | Turning point toward the establishment of the Second United Front |
| 1937 | Full-scale Sino-Japanese War | Formation of the Second United Front |
| 1945 | Defeat of Japan | Renewed confrontation between the KMT and the CCP |
| 1946 | Full-scale Chinese Civil War | Struggle for political control of China |
| 1948 | Liaoshen Campaign | Communist forces gained control of Manchuria |
| 1948–1949 | Huaihai Campaign | KMT forces suffered a major defeat |
| 1949 | Pingjin Campaign | Communist forces gained control of major cities in North China |
| April 1949 | Fall of Nanjing | Collapse of Nationalist government control over mainland China |
| October 1949 | Establishment of the People’s Republic of China | Establishment of a Communist government on mainland China |
| December 1949 | Relocation of the Republic of China government to Taiwan | Consolidation of the political division between mainland China and Taiwan |
Appendix 3: Route Map of the Transfer of Palace Museum Artifacts to Taiwan
Figure Title:
Wartime Evacuation and Transfer Routes of Palace Museum Artifacts to Taiwan (1933–1949)
Routes to Be Illustrated:
Beijing (Palace Museum)
↓
Wartime Evacuation from Beijing
↓
Southwestern China / Inland Evacuation Routes
↓
Temporary Preservation and Storage in Wartime China
↓
Postwar Reorganization and Transportation
↓
Transfer from Mainland China to Taiwan
↓
Taiwan
↓
National Palace Museum, Taipei
Figure Caption:
The wartime evacuation and subsequent transfer of Palace Museum artifacts from mainland China to Taiwan between 1933 and 1949. The figure illustrates the broad historical movement of cultural artifacts from Beijing through various wartime evacuation and preservation locations before their eventual transfer to Taiwan.
Note: The specific routes, locations, vessels, dates, and individuals involved in each stage should be identified based on primary historical sources and official records. The figure should therefore distinguish between confirmed routes and locations and those that remain subject to further historical verification.
Appendix 4: Relationship Chart of the Soong Sisters
The Soong Sisters and Modern Chinese Politics
Political Positions of the Three Soong Sisters
| Person | Spouse | Main Political Position | Historical Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soong Ai-ling | Kong Xiangxi | Nationalist Government (Kuomintang) | Influential in financial and economic affairs |
| Soong Ching-ling | Sun Yat-sen | Revolutionary movement / Left wing of the Kuomintang | Carried on Sun Yat-sen’s ideals |
| Soong May-ling | Chiang Kai-shek | Nationalist Government (Kuomintang) | Influenced U.S. diplomacy and international public opinion |
Significance in This Study
The three Soong sisters are positioned not merely as a family in history, but as symbolic figures representing the political divisions and divergent paths surrounding the Chinese Revolution, the Kuomintang (KMT), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the Republic of China (ROC), and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Appendix 5: Comparison of the Palace Museum in Beijing and the National Palace Museum in Taipei
| Category | The Palace Museum, Beijing | National Palace Museum, Taipei |
|---|---|---|
| Location | Beijing, China | Taipei, Taiwan |
| English Name | The Palace Museum | National Palace Museum |
| Established | 1925 | Main building opened in 1965 |
| Foundation | The Forbidden City itself | Imperial court artifacts transferred from Beijing and elsewhere |
| Historical Background | Imperial palace of the Ming and Qing dynasties | Transfer of cultural artifacts by the Nationalist Government |
| Main Characteristics | Palace architecture and imperial court culture | Art, crafts, and historical documents from successive Chinese dynasties |
| Representative Value | The historical space of the Forbidden City | The imperial court collection |
| Cultural Role | Preservation of Chinese dynastic culture | Preservation and study of Chinese civilization and imperial court culture |
| Political Symbolism | The inheritance of Chinese civilization in mainland China | The inheritance of Chinese culture in the Republic of China and Taiwan |
| Position in This Study | Inheritance of the “place” of the dynasties | Inheritance of the “collection” of dynastic cultural artifacts |
Key Analytical Point
This study does not view the Palace Museum in Beijing and the National Palace Museum in Taipei as a simple binary choice of “which one is the only legitimate Palace Museum.” Rather, they are compared as two different forms of historical and cultural inheritance:
The Palace Museum in Beijing
= Inheritance of the political space, architecture, and physical sites of the dynasties
The National Palace Museum in Taipei
= Inheritance of the imperial court collections, cultural artifacts, and intellectual heritage of the dynasties
By adopting this perspective, it becomes possible to distinguish between “inheriting the cultural artifacts of the Palace Museum” and “possessing the legal legitimacy of the state of China,” while analyzing the historical relationship between the two.
© Middle East and Asia Strategic Information Institute. All Rights Reserved.
・Author： Akinobu Kinoshita
An independent analyst specializing in political affairs, security, and information strategy across the Middle East and Asia. Drawing on over 30 years of field networks and hands-on experience at the government level, he founded the Middle East Asia Information Strategy Institute in 2025. Author of ISIS to Tatakau (Aiikusha, 2016).
