Reports of Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) support for Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi's visit to the Yasukuni war shrine (
Lee's critics feel that he disregards the enmity left over from WWII, holds an imperfect understanding of the of the war, and supports the rekindling of Japanese imperialism.
Even if the report was correct -- that Lee had truly said that every country has citizens who died for their country at war, and government members' praying for them is the country's domestic affairs -- what is wrong with the statement?
The Japanese invasion of Asian countries must not be forgotten, but historically wars have always been launched by a minority in the government. It's not appropriate to say nations that participated in the second world war are the biggest criminals in history.
Protesting against Koizumi's visit essentially says these dead soldiers are war criminals. Demanding that the Japanese government abstain from praying for these "criminals" shows a lack of understanding of the innate quality of war.
WWII caused great harm to Taiwan as well as China, but Beijing's statement reflects a lack of understanding for the unique circumstances and emotions in Taiwan created by the Japanese colonization.
Both sides of the strait have been baptized by war, but the Chinese communist party has still not abandoned the threat to use of arms against Taiwan. This shows the Communist Party's double standard regarding war.
Anyone stirring wartime sentiment will always use slogans about nationalism to send people to the battlefield. War crimes should be blamed on government's misguided policies, not on the people.
Regardless of whether it is the victimized countries or the relatives of those who died for their country, the wounds of war have still today not been healed. But if the victimized side is unable to forgive, and so heal the wounds of war, it will become the source of yet more war, and an endless circle of hate.
The aggressor must also remember the cruel price of war, and not revive nationalism by covering up historical facts or exaggerating the beauty of the nation.
If the Chinese authorities also remember the experience and destruction brought by war, they should understand the feelings of a Taiwanese people under the threat of war. They should then not only refrain from making hard demands on the Japanese government, but also examine their own policies according to the same standard to see whether they are continuing the expansion of dictatorial powers in Asia, whether they are also threatening their neighbors.
Chien Hsi-chieh is a DPP legislator and executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan (
Translated by Perry Svensson.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath