The debate over who led the Chinese War of Resistance Against Japan during World War II is hardly meaningful for Taiwanese and will only get them caught in the trap of defending the legitimacy of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Should Taiwanese really endorse the KMT’s historic perspective? The answer is obvious.
In a historical context, the Republic of China (ROC), the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and even the ancient Qing (清), Song (宋), Tang (唐) and Han (漢) dynasties all directly belong to a Chinese historical lineage.
As far as the Chinese are concerned, the ROC is a government or dynasty that has already perished and became history and the PRC became the Chinese government when it inherited the Chinese legacy in 1949.
So, from this perspective, it is perfectly reasonable for the PRC, which currently represents China, to commemorate the Battle of Red Cliffs in 208, the first campaign in the Tang war against the ancient Korean state of Goguryeo in 666; Zheng He’s (鄭和) first voyage of exploration in 1405; or the end of World War II in 1945, as all these events are parts of Chinese history.
On the other hand, it makes little sense for Taiwan to fight with China over who led the War of Resistance Against Japan or who gets to have a say about it.
Taiwanese need to ask why the they are still looking at the world from the KMT’s historical perspective and why they are still defining Taiwan’s international position from the KMT’s point of view. They must completely free themselves from the historic perspective of China and the KMT.
Instead, they should re-examine the past and commemorate events that are significant to Taiwan, such as Lin Shuang-wen’s (林爽文) revolt against the Qing Dynasty in 1786, the establishment of the Republic of Formosa in 1895, the Wushe Incident (霧社事件) in 1930, the raid over Taipei by US bombers in 1945, the 228 Incident in 1947 and so on. These are significant events that Taiwanese should remember and commemorate.
Consider a hypothetical scenario: In 1930, when Taiwan was still a part of the Japanese empire, civil war erupted in Japan and Japanese communists took over the Japanese home islands, declared the establishment of the “People’s Republic of Japan,” earned the recognition of a large number of countries around the world and joined the League of Nations. The government of the overthrown Japanese empire fled to Taiwan, claimed that it was the legitimate government of Japan and fought with the People’s Republic of Japan over the right to represent Japan. In such a situation, which government would have the right to represent Japan? If the same model is applied to the situation of the PRC and the ROC, the answer becomes obvious.
Why, then, should Taiwanese take on the historic construct of the defeated KMT regime that fled to Taiwan?
Taiwanese should follow their own path, construct our their historic point of view, face their own history, have confidence in themselves as a nation, thoroughly rid themselves of leftover ideologies from the Chinese Civil War that the KMT brought with it and free themselves from brainwashing.
This is the only way for the nation to be reborn.
Lim Kuan-tsi is a student at the Graduate Institute of National Development in National Taiwan University
Translated by Ethan Zhan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS