While well meaning, Richard Halloran's article ("Time to conclude Japan's string of apologies for World War II," Oct 7, page 9) calling for a final listing of all Japan's apologies to East Asian victims of its aggression during WWII contains a glaring factual error and also a logical misstep.
He states that the emperor of Japan is the only one with the moral and constitutional authority to speak for all Japanese people. To make this statement displays ignorance of basic political facts in Japan.
The individual who speaks for all Japanese is the prime minister, chosen through democratic means in a democratic society.
The constitution clearly states that the emperor is merely the "symbol" of the people. Why call for the current emperor to speak for all Japanese precisely when you are arguing for apologies for the actions of a political system of the past, one of the most salient characteristics of which was that the emperor was the constitutional sovereign, a decidedly non-democratic arrangement?
Halloran's argument, taken on its own terms, makes no logical sense. And it makes no legal sense, either. The elected government of Japan speaks for the Japanese, not the emperor, just as in Britain and the US and every other democracy around the world.
Scott O'Bryan
Assistant Professor of History, Indiana University,
Indiana, USA
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS