Acting on the Cabinet’s instructions, the Ministry of National Defense is planning activities to mark the 70th anniversary of China’s war of resistance against Japan.
The emphasis will be on the idea that the government of the Republic of China (ROC) played the leading role in the war, in case people have a different impression. Some Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have also called on the ministry to organize a military parade as a way of vying with China for the right to talk about the “victorious resistance.”
China wants to flaunt its military might and proclaim its rise on the world stage. In its foreign policy, it seeks to suppress Japan’s global status, while at home, it fans the flames of nationalist sentiment. This lends some purpose to its commemorations.
On the other hand, for the anachronistic “Republic of China” to make a song and dance about resisting Japan has no purpose in foreign policy and does not strike a chord with the Taiwanese public. Therefore, devoting resources to proclaiming the ROC’s “historical contribution” is wasteful and rather silly.
During the war, the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party each had their different aims. Since neither had the strength to control the whole country, each defended its own half. The biggest contribution to Japan’s defeat came not from China, but from the US.
The KMT claims that it won the war of resistance and “restored” Taiwan to Chinese sovereignty. However, back in the day, then-US secretary of state John Foster Dulles stated plainly that it was by virtue of US power that Taiwan was recovered from Japanese possession.
The US declared war on Japan because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and it was only after the US declared war that then-ROC president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) summoned up the courage to declare war also. The US followed an island-hopping strategy that took it closer and closer to invading the main islands of Japan, with two US atom bombs finally forcing Japan to surrender.
Meanwhile, Chiang’s contribution merely consisted of bogging Japan down with a strategy of no war, no peace, no surrender and no retreat.
The US called the Japanese surrender Victory Over Japan Day, or V-J Day for short. It marks not only the end of the war in the Pacific, but also the end of World War II. However, after the war, the US and Japan became allies, so the US only commemorates the attack on Pearl Harbor and does not make a big show about a victory that was brought about by two atom bombs.
It is undeniable that Chiang’s government led the war of resistance against Japan, but now the KMT wants to vie with the Chinese government as to who made the biggest historical contribution. To do so in Taiwan, which played no part in that resistance, is quite nonsensical.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has reportedly invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to review China’s commemorative parade. The Soviet Union only declared war on Japan after the US dropped the atom bombs, taking the opportunity to seize Japanese industrial equipment from Manchuria. It did help the older generation of Xi’s Communist Party to defeat Chiang in northeast China, but it made no other contribution to the war against Japan.
There is no need for the US to celebrate V-J Day, because its major role in defeating Japan is undeniable, but the two rival Chinese parties keep arguing over who made the biggest contribution to a victory that was not won by them. Such is the ingrained nature of Chinese politicians.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had