Taiwan at the crossroads
Oct. 25 marked the 70th anniversary of so-called “Retrocession Day.” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) emphasized the Chinese Nationalist Party’s “victory” in the eight-year War of Resistance against Japan, which he said contributed to the retrocession of Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC), as indicated in the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Declaration and Japanese Instrument of Surrender
Ma’s statement is just rhetoric without any legal basis, as the Cairo Declaration was merely a media communique unsigned by the “Big Three” — then-US president Franklin Roosevelt, then-British prime minister Winston Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) at the Cairo meeting; the Potsdam Declaration only mentioned the limits of Japan’s future territory, while Chiang did not attend the meeting; and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender did not mention anything related to Taiwan’s retrocession.
Seventy years ago the KMT/ROC was authorized under General Order No. 1 by US General Douglas MacArthur to accept the surrender of Japanese commanders and all forces in Taiwan, China and Vietnam. The San Francisco Peace Treaty — the final settlement of World War II — did not give the ROC sovereignty over Taiwan.
So, there is no Retrocession Day; Oct. 25, 1945, only marked the date of the KMT’s new military occupation of Taiwan, which has not officially ended. In fact, the declaration of Taiwan’s Retrocession to China is a war crime, as it violated rules saying that a military occupation does not constitute the transaction of sovereignty, which must be done through the signing of peace treaties.
KMT presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫) has said that he is concerned over the attitude of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) toward the nature of the ROC’s presence in Taiwan. Taiwan’s history since the Japanese colonial period must be respected by all; hopefully, there will not be controversial views stirred up by political parties. Taiwanese have for decades suffered as a result of the KMT/ROC’s war crime of occupying Taiwan, and now its modern-day incarnation is asking people to respect the criminal act. What a joke.
DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has said that there are two camps that hold differing views on the Oct. 25 holiday.
What Tsai said highlights what is important: People must recognize the existence of differences; then, mutual understanding and tolerance can help stop these camps from greater divergence.
The war ended 70 years ago, and the Martial Law-era has been over for 28 years; the task of this generation is to make new memories — to make the lives of different ethnic groups become integrated with society, rather than the root cause of disputes.
Quoting George Leslie Mackay, a missionary to Taiwan, Tsai said: “No matter where we come from, regardless of the troubles and noise, Taiwan is our home. We want to serve, to love, to pamper her.”
However, is Taiwan an independent nation? If not, how can it be established? The No. 1 issue we face is national identity: Taiwan or the ROC?
The international community calls the nation “Taiwan,” but should “ROC” be emphasized? The name ROC directly challenges China and invites it to annex Taiwan. The issue is not resolved by a unilateral declaration of retrocession.
Unfortunately, after 70 years of brainwashing by the KMT, Taiwanese have begun taking for granted the existence of the ROC. Most people believe that Taiwan is the ROC, and the ROC is Taiwan. However, consider reality: Is the ROC an independent nation with sovereignty? The answer is no. The KMT cites the ROC Constitution, which claims China and Mongolia as its the territory; the notion is baloney. Chinese do not recognize it and even Chiang did not stick to the idea, putting into place a temporary provision during the Communist rebellion.
More Taiwanese are questioning the appropriateness of the Constitution. The Center on Democracy Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University sponsored a conference on Monday and Tuesday to discuss Taiwanese democracy.
Indeed, democracy is at the crossroads. Do Taiwanese want to be a political orphan living in the illusory nation of the ROC forever? Where is Taiwan headed: toward being a slave to the KMT, a Chinese vassal, or its own master? People need to unite to steer it to the right path.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Choke on it, Taipei
What a perverse joy it is to look at the pollution map today and see that the hardest-hit city in the whole country is Taipei.
After weeks of watching Taichung fester under a carcinogenic shroud of gray bleakness, now the capital can see, feel, taste and fail to escape from our daily reality. Suddenly articles pop up in the news. Oh, suddenly this issue is real. May you join my family in the fear for the children who play in this, the elderly who must avoid it and the commuters who bike or ride scooters through pollution so palpable you can see its residue on your mask after only an hour. Let us enjoy this moment of fellowship as we wonder what the hell we are going to do, because clearly we have not done enough.
While the current assault on quality of life may largely originate from a foreign cesspit, central Taiwan’s problem is largely local, with Changhua claiming that 60 percent of its customary blight is of Taiwanese origin.
Forgive my cartoonish, supervillain-esque laughter and desire to see this scourge carry on in the north until we all care enough about the issue to accept it, confront it and defeat it.
Aaron Andrews
Taichung
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past