The Legitimacy of the Republic of China Is the Prerequisite for the Legitimacy of China's UN Seat
2006/2/10 20:37:57
The post "The irreplaceable historical achievements of Chiang Kai-shek in the War of Resistance must be re-established" sparked a debate. Below is one fairly representative reply -- though it's utter nonsense, I'll reproduce it here first:
"Why not give the so-called Republic of China its own separate historical record? Because it was not a legitimate Chinese dynasty. By Chinese tradition, the legitimacy of a dynasty is judged by two criteria: first, whether the means of taking the realm were proper, and second, whether effective and stable governance was achieved after taking the realm. The second criterion is more important. Some dynasties obtained the realm through improper means, but because they later established stable governance across the whole country, we still recognize their legitimacy. The 'Republic of China' was established by Southern bourgeois revolutionaries colluding with the treacherous Qing minister Yuan Shikai, usurping the throne through palace coercion -- the means were improper. After its establishment, it lasted only a short time on the mainland before being driven to a small island. Moreover, it never achieved effective unification or administration across the whole country -- warlord fragmentation, social upheaval, political corruption, enormous public anger. In the 1940s, the Sino-American Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, signed between the Nationalist government and the United States, was the most comprehensive sell-out treaty in modern Chinese history. How could such an extremely corrupt, treacherous, reactionary, and short-lived regime qualify as a legitimate Chinese dynasty, enjoying the treatment that comes with separate historical documentation? I believe the historical materials regarding the 'Republic of China' may be included as a 'Bogus Republic Chronicle' appended to the Qing History, following the precedent of the 'Bandit Chronicles' in the Ming History."
By the nonsensical logic above, the Qin and Sui dynasties certainly wouldn't count as legitimate, being too short-lived. The Sui, Tang, and Song certainly wouldn't either, since they were "usurpations" -- former ministers becoming rulers. Yuan and Qing would be even less so -- how could something barbaric foreigners created be orthodox? In short, every dynasty in Chinese history can be found illegitimate for some reason or another. So the claim of illegitimacy is simply a bastard argument. Accept it, and China needs no history at all.
Remember: the Republic of China was founded by Sun Yat-sen. When the Republic was founded, Brother Zhongzheng (Chiang Kai-shek) was still skulking around in some small alley on the Shanghai Bund. Using Chiang to negate the Republic is as absurd as using Qin Er Shi's brevity to negate the Qin dynasty, or Yang Guang's debauchery to negate the Sui. And speaking of Brother Zhongzheng, look at some of the letters Mao Runzhi wrote to him during the War of Resistance -- doesn't he address him as "Commander" and such?
The Republic's greatest achievement was making China a founding member of the United Nations. That we can now be one of the five great powers in the UN is absolutely to the Republic's credit -- this nobody can deny or refute! A person can be shameless, can be dishonest, but the law doesn't care about that, and international law doesn't care about that. If the Republic of China was not legitimate, then what China replaced in the UN in the 1970s was not a legitimate entity, and the legal consequences that follow need not be spelled out!
Anyone who says the Republic was illegitimate -- if they don't have water in their brain, they must be a lackey of America or Japan.