Celebrations for Double Ten National Day were held in Taipei, New York, Australia and several other places around the world. While Taiwanese people were enjoying the festivities celebrating the 94th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China (ROC), they seemed to forget a fundamental question: is there really a national title called the "ROC," and does it really exist now?
First, let us look at the past 94 years. From the ROC's founding to Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) Chinese National Party (KMT) to the regime's retreat to Taiwan, the name ROC had been the national title for China for 38 years. When the title ROC was first established in 1911 in China following the fall of the Qing Dynasty, it had jurisdiction over 35 provinces, excluding Taiwan (which had been ceded to Japan by the Qing government). Then, for 56 years after 1949, the title of ROC has referred to the government in Taiwan, with no jurisdiction over China.
In other words, the title ROC currently exists in a place (Taiwan) that was originally not under its jurisdiction, and the time it has been in a foreign place (56 years) exceeds that of its founding place (38 years). Is this reasonable? Is there another example of such a situation anywhere else in the world?
Second, during the four-year period between Japan's surrender in 1945 to 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) established a new regime in China, the ROC -- which used to govern the whole of continental China -- in fact ruled over Taiwan for only four years.
There are even controversies over this period of sovereignty arising from the fact that Japan's renunciation of Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not specify who would take over the government of the territory.
Some people argue that since Taiwan was ceded to Japan by the Qing government, when Japan relinquished it, it would have been given back to the ROC, the successor of the Qing Dynasty.
But, with the same logic, Beijing can also say that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) defeated the KMT, and the ROC was replaced by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 in China -- therefore, China should be qualified to inherit the ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan.
But, most Taiwanese people think the vagueness over whose jurisdiction Taiwan fell under in the San Francisco treaty was intentional. The intention was to return Taiwan to its owners, the people of Taiwan. Such thinking has some legal basis for the theory that Taiwan's international status has yet to be determined.
But however we look at it, the continued existence of the title "ROC" is a ridiculous phenomenon. And, given the aforementioned examples, it is not difficult to see that the ROC is simply an illusion.
The cross-strait peace advancement bill (
If the KMT and the PFP intend to recover the mainland, end the CCP's one-party regime and restore the sovereignty of the ROC, then their policy has some validity. But, the situation is entirely different, for they are willing to allow Taiwan to be conquered by China rather than allow the country to adopt "Taiwan" as its national title. This is the key issue.
On Oct. 10 this year, it was ridiculous to see the public still celebrating Double Ten National Day because they, in fact, are celebrating something that has not existed in Taiwan for 94 years.
Cao Changqing is a Chinese dissident writer based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS