This year marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The treaty was the start of a new era for Taiwan, as Japanese rule over the island and the Penghu Islands was formally brought to an end, so it is not hard to understand why Taiwan-centric organizations are planning to hold a string of events to commemorate the anniversary.
This year is also marks 40 years since the right to represent China in the UN was passed from one government to another. How are Taiwanese to commemorate this latter anniversary?
As expressed in UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, the UN decided to “expel forthwith the representatives of [former president] Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.” The resolution does not mention Taiwan at all. Nevertheless, many people lament that “our Taiwan” became an international orphan from that day on and that Chiang’s rigid insistence that a legitimate government (his own) could not coexist with bandits (the Chinese Communist Party) did a lot of harm to Taiwan. In response to such ideas, some people might ask when “our Taiwan” ever joined the UN in the first place.
Martial law under Chiang and his son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), led Taiwanese, or at least those involved in the overseas Taiwan independence movement, to clearly differentiate themselves from the country known as the Republic of China (ROC). Given the historical background, it is easy to understand why they were antagonistic toward it. However, martial law was eventually lifted and Taiwan became much freer and more democratic under president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Thereafter, all members of the legislature were elected by Taiwanese, who also got to choose the president through direct election. The “Republic of China on Taiwan,” which came into being through constitutional practice, as embodied by the Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution, may by now have become a “status quo” that most people would like to preserve.
In this situation, it becomes very difficult to cut oneself off and stand in opposition to the idea of the ROC, in contrast with the way things were when the two Chiangs were in power. One can continuously argue in favor of such a position yet still not convince many people. The main difficulty is not the theory, but the reality and perception of life for the majority of people.
If we want to commemorate “that incident” in 1971, then the blame for it really does lie on the shoulders of Chiang Kai-shek.
On Oct. 18, 1971, Chiang Kai-shek wrote in his diary: “The United Nations has turned into a den of traitors and criminal invaders. We should keep well clear of it and not associate with such undesirables anymore. I have decided that we should withdraw from the United Nations of our own accord so as to preserve our glorious history.”
On Oct. 26, 1971, he wrote: “Today we formally announced our withdrawal from the United Nations. This is one example of how that scoundrel [US president Richard] Nixon is plotting against us, but it is not enough to kill us off.”
The fact that Chiang Kai-shek called Nixon a “scoundrel” shows how prejudiced he was, while in reality Washington had kept trying to find ways of keeping a seat at the UN for the ROC government while accepting Beijing’s admission to the organization at the same time. The US’ efforts in this regard are attested to by numerous diplomatic files.
With Taiwan’s policies in the hands of such a stubborn and prejudiced old man, the outcome could hardly have been a good one.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow in the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Last year, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) turned the Double Ten National Day ceremony into a platform for grievances against the government. Yesterday, standing before the president and foreign dignitaries, he warned against Taiwan becoming a “false democracy, in reality a dictatorship.” Then he called for unity. Democratic leaders must tolerate criticism, even on ceremonial occasions, but Han misused his position and a national celebration to insinuate that Taiwan’s elected president was steering the country toward dictatorship and cast himself as a statesman offering reconciliation. Han asked how Taiwan’s security should be examined, using a medical analogy. If he insists on playing
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving