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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS