A map of the Empire of Japan including Taiwan in 1895

Alternate History: U.S. Occupation of Formosa in the 1850s

If the United States had occupied Formosa (modern-day Taiwan) in the 1850s following Commodore Matthew C. Perry’s proposal, the island’s historical trajectory, as well as regional and global dynamics, could have diverged significantly. Below is a speculative exploration of how history might have unfolded:

Strategic and Economic Implications:

• Trade Hub: Formosa’s occupation would have positioned the U.S. as a major player in East Asian trade, leveraging the island as a mid-way point between China, Japan, and Southeast Asia. American merchants could have dominated trade routes, challenging British, French, and Dutch influence.
• Military Stronghold: As Perry noted, Formosa’s defensible geography could have made it a key naval base, akin to Cuba for Spain. This would have given the U.S. a strategic foothold to project power in the Pacific, potentially deterring European colonial ambitions and influencing conflicts like the Opium Wars.
• Economic Development: American investment might have spurred early infrastructure development, such as ports, railways, and telegraph lines, transforming Formosa into a commercial hub earlier than its historical industrialization under Japanese rule (1895–1945).

Impact on Regional Powers:

• Qing China: The Qing Dynasty, which nominally controlled Formosa, was weakening in the 1850s due to internal rebellions (e.g., Taiping Rebellion) and external pressures. A U.S. occupation might have provoked diplomatic protests but likely no military response, given Qing limitations. However, it could have accelerated China’s perception of foreign encirclement, possibly intensifying anti-Western sentiment.
• Japan: Japan, opened to trade by Perry’s missions, might have viewed U.S. control of Formosa warily, especially as it modernized post-Meiji Restoration (1868). This could have led to earlier tensions or alliances, altering Japan’s imperial ambitions toward Taiwan in 1895.
• European Powers: Britain and France, dominant in Asia, would likely have opposed U.S. expansion, fearing competition. This might have led to diplomatic friction or even proxy conflicts, though outright war would have been unlikely given shared Western interests.

Formosa’s Sociopolitical Evolution:

• American Governance: The U.S. might have administered Formosa as a territory, similar to Hawaii or the Philippines later. This could have introduced American legal systems, education, and Protestant missionary activity, reshaping local culture alongside indigenous and Chinese influences.
• Indigenous and Settler Dynamics: The U.S. would have faced challenges managing Formosa’s indigenous populations and Chinese settlers. Policies might have mirrored those toward Native Americans, potentially leading to displacement or assimilation efforts, with long-term demographic and cultural impacts.
• Path to Statehood or Independence: Depending on U.S. policy, Formosa could have followed a trajectory like Hawaii (annexation and statehood) or the Philippines (eventual independence). By the 20th century, Formosa might have emerged as a U.S. state, a self-governing territory, or an independent nation with strong American ties.

Global Ramifications:

• U.S. Imperial Trajectory: Occupying Formosa would have accelerated America’s imperial ambitions, potentially leading to earlier involvement in Pacific conflicts or colonization efforts elsewhere in Asia.
• World Wars and Cold War: A U.S.-controlled Formosa might have altered Pacific dynamics during World War II, possibly preventing Japanese occupation. In the Cold War, it could have been a staunch U.S. ally, shifting regional balances against China and the Soviet Union.
• Modern Taiwan: Today, Formosa might resemble a Pacific version of Hawaii or Guam, with a unique blend of American, Chinese, and indigenous identities. Its geopolitical role could mirror Singapore’s as a trade and military hub, with less ambiguity over sovereignty than modern Taiwan faces.

Legal Justification for U.S. Occupation

The U.S. could have attempted to justify occupying Formosa legally in the 1850s using frameworks common to 19th-century imperialism, though the justification would have been contentious. Possible approaches include:

Terra Nullius or “No Sovereign Control”:

• The U.S. could have argued that Formosa was effectively under no strong sovereign control, given the Qing Dynasty’s loose governance over the island (limited to coastal areas, with indigenous groups dominating the interior). This claim, akin to justifications for colonizing Australia, would have ignored Qing nominal authority and indigenous rights but aligned with Western colonial logic.

Strategic Necessity and Trade Rights:

• Citing the need to secure trade routes and counter European monopolies, the U.S. could have framed occupation as a defensive measure to protect American commercial interests. Perry’s reports emphasized Formosa’s strategic value, which could have been presented as justifying preemptive control to ensure “freedom of commerce.”

Treaty or Purchase:

• The U.S. might have sought a treaty with the Qing Dynasty, exploiting China’s weakness to cede or lease Formosa, similar to Britain’s acquisition of Hong Kong in 1842. Alternatively, a nominal purchase (like the Louisiana Purchase) could have been proposed, though Qing resistance to ceding territory outright would have been likely.

Civilizing Mission:

• Echoing the “white man’s burden,” the U.S. could have claimed a duty to “civilize” Formosa’s indigenous peoples and Chinese settlers, introducing Christianity, education, and governance. This paternalistic rationale was common in U.S. expansion (e.g., Native American policies) and European colonialism.

Precedent of Exploration:

• Drawing on Perry’s analogy to Cuba’s role for Spain, the U.S. could have argued that occupying Formosa was a natural extension of its exploratory and commercial rights, akin to earlier claims over uncharted territories in the Americas.

Challenges to Legality:

• Qing Sovereignty: The Qing Dynasty, though weak, maintained recognized sovereignty over Formosa, and occupation without treaty or conquest would have violated international norms, risking condemnation from China and European powers.
• Domestic Opposition: U.S. anti-imperialists and those wary of overexpansion (especially amid sectional tensions over slavery) might have challenged the legal and moral basis for occupation.
• International Backlash: European powers, particularly Britain, might have contested U.S. claims diplomatically, citing their own treaties with China or invoking balance-of-power concerns.

Conclusion

A U.S. occupation of Formosa in the 1850s could have transformed the island into a key American outpost, reshaping East Asian trade, regional power dynamics, and Formosa’s cultural identity. It might have accelerated U.S. imperialism while complicating relations with China, Japan, and Europe. Legally, the U.S. would likely have relied on dubious colonial-era justifications, exploiting Qing weakness and framing occupation as a strategic and civilizing necessity, though such claims would have faced significant diplomatic and ethical scrutiny.

Commodore Perry’s fleet for his second visit to Japan, 1854

The post Alternative History: Commodore Matthew C. Perry occupies Formosa in the 1850s appeared first on Asian Histories.

Between 1945 and 1949, the U.S. State Department’s stance on Taiwan’s status was shaped by a mix of strategic, geopolitical, and practical considerations in the complex post-World War II landscape. Rather than pushing for Taiwanese independence, U.S. policymakers largely supported de facto control of the island by the Republic of China (ROC). Here’s a breakdown of why the U.S. did not advocate for Taiwan’s independence during this period:

1. Wartime Declarations and Diplomatic Commitments:

The 1943 Cairo Declaration, issued by the U.S., UK, and China, stated that Taiwan (then known as Formosa), which had been a Japanese colony since 1895, “shall be restored to the Republic of China” after Japan’s defeat. This intention was reaffirmed in the 1945 Potsdam Declaration. While these statements were political declarations rather than binding legal treaties, they set the diplomatic tone for postwar expectations. The U.S. was inclined to honor its wartime pledges to the ROC under Chiang Kai-shek, treating Taiwan’s transfer to Chinese control as the default outcome.

2. Focus on Containing Communism:

The U.S. prioritized stabilizing China under the Nationalist government (ROC) to counter the growing threat of Soviet influence and the rise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Supporting Taiwanese independence could have undermined Chiang’s legitimacy and fragmented Chinese territory at a time when U.S. policy aimed to bolster a unified, non-communist China. The State Department viewed Taiwan as an essential part of this broader anti-communist strategy.

3. Taiwan’s Legal and Administrative Status:

After Japan’s surrender in 1945, Allied commanders authorized Chiang Kai-shek’s forces to accept Japan’s surrender in Taiwan, leading to ROC administration of the island. However, Taiwan’s legal status remained unresolved until the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, in which Japan formally renounced sovereignty over Taiwan without designating a recipient. The U.S. acknowledged ROC administration de facto, but did not recognize de jure sovereignty, maintaining a stance of strategic ambiguity. At the time, the State Department saw no need to challenge this arrangement, which aligned with wartime understandings and required no major policy shift.

4. Weakness of Local Independence Movements:

During this period, there was no robust, internationally recognized movement advocating for Taiwanese independence. While some Taiwanese intellectuals and former elites resented both Japanese colonial rule and ROC governance, the political landscape was fractured and lacked organized leadership or mass mobilization. Even after the brutal suppression of dissent in the 1947 February 28 Incident, the idea of independence had not yet gained significant traction. As a result, the U.S. had little incentive to back a nebulous cause that could alienate the ROC and complicate regional stability.

5. Preoccupation with the Chinese Civil War:

The intensifying civil war between the Nationalists and Communists dominated U.S. attention in East Asia. The State Department focused on supporting Chiang’s regime with military and economic aid, hoping to stave off a Communist takeover of China. Any push for Taiwanese independence would have been a distraction from this primary objective and risked alienating an already embattled ROC government.

6. Geopolitical Pragmatism in the Early Cold War:

With the onset of the Cold War, the U.S. had little interest in creating a potentially unstable new state in Taiwan that might fall prey to communist influence or become a source of regional instability. ROC control over Taiwan ensured a friendly government in a strategically significant Pacific location, aligning with U.S. efforts to maintain influence in Asia and check Soviet expansion.

7. Bureaucratic Ambiguity and Policy Drift:

Internal debates within the U.S. government also played a role. The State Department was divided over how strongly to support Chiang’s increasingly authoritarian and corrupt regime. Taiwan’s long-term status was considered a secondary issue, and with no clear policy consensus, the U.S. defaulted to the status quo—recognizing ROC administration without pushing for a formal resolution or an independent Taiwan.

In summary, the U.S. State Department did not promote Taiwanese independence between 1945 and 1949 because it prioritized diplomatic commitments, Cold War strategy, and regional stability over endorsing a new and uncertain national project. Although Taiwan’s legal status remained unresolved, the de facto transfer of administrative control to the ROC was treated as a practical solution. In the eyes of U.S. officials, this arrangement upheld wartime promises, supported anti-communist goals, and avoided unnecessary complications during an already volatile period in East Asia.

______________________

The post Why did the U.S. State Department not push for independence for former Japanese colony Taiwan between 1945 and 1949? appeared first on Asian Histories.