China's Historical Statecraft: The Construction of Lost Territories in Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, Taiwan, and the South China Sea

Since the 2010s, China has been increasingly assertive in its sovereignty claims over Taiwan and the disputed islands in the South China Sea (hereafter SCS). Specifically, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) legitimizes its ownership of these two places based on the glory of China's imperial past, shared Confucian traditions between the Chinese and Taiwanese people, and the humiliation of its colonial subjugation. Meanwhile, Beijing has been reticent about its northeastern territory ceded to Russia, as it aims to maintain stable bilateral relations. China's official narrative and foreign policy behaviour pose the following empirical puzzles: How does the Chinese government invoke feelings of glory and humiliation (or lack thereof) in constructing its claim over what it views as its indivisible territory? What role does Beijing's use of history play in forging its great power identity? This study advocates a long-term perspective on how political actors represent territory in ways that are indivisible, thereby providing insights into China's grand strategy, foreign policy posture, and its view on territorial integrity. The organization of this article is as follows. First, it engages the current literature on constructivism, territorial disputes, and Chinese foreign policy. It then proposes a framework of historical statecraft for understanding how the CCP institutionalizes the nation's past with an official narrative of glory and humiliation. Second, it unpacks the notion of indivisible territories in China's narrative, and it examines official statements from the country's top leadership, high-level diplomats, and government officials, showing how indivisibility is a socially constructed process. Third, this study provides a structured comparison of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, Taiwan, and the SCS. Finally, it concludes with thoughts on the direction of future research on foreign policy analysis and offers policy implications for countries in Asia and beyond.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Pacific Affairs
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5509/2025982-art3
Primary Topic
Arctic and Russian Policy Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

China's Historical Statecraft: The Construction of Lost Territories in Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, Taiwan, and the South China Sea

Christina Lai
Pacific Affairs
Arctic and Russian Policy Studies
article

China's Historical Statecraft: The Construction of Lost Territories in Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, Taiwan, and the South China Sea

Christina Lai
article en

Abstract

Since the 2010s, China has been increasingly assertive in its sovereignty claims over Taiwan and the disputed islands in the South China Sea (hereafter SCS). Specifically, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) legitimizes its ownership of these two places based on the glory of China's imperial past, shared Confucian traditions between the Chinese and Taiwanese people, and the humiliation of its colonial subjugation. Meanwhile, Beijing has been reticent about its northeastern territory ceded to Russia, as it aims to maintain stable bilateral relations. China's official narrative and foreign policy behaviour pose the following empirical puzzles: How does the Chinese government invoke feelings of glory and humiliation (or lack thereof) in constructing its claim over what it views as its indivisible territory? What role does Beijing's use of history play in forging its great power identity? This study advocates a long-term perspective on how political actors represent territory in ways that are indivisible, thereby providing insights into China's grand strategy, foreign policy posture, and its view on territorial integrity. The organization of this article is as follows. First, it engages the current literature on constructivism, territorial disputes, and Chinese foreign policy. It then proposes a framework of historical statecraft for understanding how the CCP institutionalizes the nation's past with an official narrative of glory and humiliation. Second, it unpacks the notion of indivisible territories in China's narrative, and it examines official statements from the country's top leadership, high-level diplomats, and government officials, showing how indivisibility is a socially constructed process. Third, this study provides a structured comparison of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, Taiwan, and the SCS. Finally, it concludes with thoughts on the direction of future research on foreign policy analysis and offers policy implications for countries in Asia and beyond.

Pacific AffairsVol. 98(2)
Institute of International Politics and Economics (RS)
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Arctic and Russian Policy Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.