Sunday was the eve of Taiwan Retrocession Day, the anniversary of the day in 1945 when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) claims the Japanese ceded Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC). It was also the day the head of the Chinese delegation to the Tokyo International Film Festival, Jiang Ping (江平), caused a diplomatic incident by insisting that the Taiwanese delegation use the name “Taiwan, China.”
The whole sorry affair has left President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) with egg on his face. His “cross-strait diplomatic truce” bubble has burst. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) honeymoon is over. The mask has slipped, and Taiwanese have caught a glimpse of what lies beneath. No wonder pan-blue politicians have been more vocal in their criticism of Jiang’s words than members of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
It’s a classic case of the Emperor’s new clothes and has exposed how little weight the words Ma used in his Taiwan Retrocession Day address actually carried when he said Taiwan is already the Taiwan of the Taiwanese people, the Taiwan of the Republic of China. All that served to do was muddy the waters even further.
Ma mentioned the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration and the official Japanese surrender, saying these provided the basis for the ceding of Taiwan to the ROC, and therefore the foundations of Taiwan Retrocession, and that they were binding. He added that then-US president Harry Truman said, back in 1950, that each country accepted that the ROC on Taiwan had sovereignty.
Retrocession Day was established by the KMT government and is an important part of the KMT’s claim that it has a legitimate right to rule Taiwan. The fact that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) took over responsibility for the rule of Taiwan from Japan means that rule by the KMT (or the ROC) in Taiwan is both proper and legitimate. This is the first Taiwan.
The DPP has a different interpretation. In its view the KMT government in Taiwan was worse than the Japanese colonial government that preceded it, because of the 228 Incident and White Terror. For the DPP Taiwan Retrocession Day has negative and objectionable connotations. Moreover, although Japan did surrender in the China theater of war to the Allied Forces, the text of the Treaty of San Francisco merely stated that Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan, but did not specify to which country. This is why many people consider the issue of Taiwan’s sovereignty to be unresolved, and why the DPP government from 2000 to 2008 referred to Taiwan Retrocession Day simply as the anniversary of the end of the war. In this context, Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country. That is the second Taiwan.
The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) arrived at what is known as the “1992 consensus,” the idea that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” The KMT holds that the “one China” is the ROC in Taiwan and not the People’s Republic of China in China. Of course, Beijing disagrees, as Jiang’s insistence has shown. As far as this interpretation goes, Taiwan is merely a province of China, which is where they get “Taiwan, China” from — this is the third Taiwan.
It is hard to say whether there is really a consensus on “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” What is clear is that between the KMT, the DPP and the CCP, there are “three Taiwans, with each party having its own preferred interpretation.”
Jiang’s performance at the Tokyo International Film Festival was for the benefit of the press, but it actually served to close the distance between the KMT and the DPP’s definition of Taiwan. At the same time, it also widened and made the gap between the definition of the two political parties in Taiwan and the CCP clearer than ever.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS