“Two Koreas, with free interpretations” — the Panmunjom summit between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on Friday last week gave the impression that the two leaders are big-hearted because they treated each other respectfully and interacted freely.
The language of the Panmunjom Declaration might be intricate, but it was written based on free will. What it talks about is peaceful coexistence rather than “one Korea” and “unification,” or which side is going to swallow the other.
It is amazing to witness this turn of history. What a change there has been since 1950, when Kim’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, sent his troops south to unify Korea. Now we see Kim Jong-un, with atom bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in his pocket, embracing Moon and talking about denuclearization and working together to promote peace.
North Korea’s “rise” under Kim Jong-un has followed a different script from that of former Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東), but with similar ends in mind.
In the early 1960s, then-Chinese minister of foreign affairs Chen Yi (陳毅), said that Chinese needed to get an atom bomb, even if they had to pawn their pants to get it.
Similarly, and with no regard for the lives of ordinary North Koreans, Kim Jong-un has done his utmost to get nuclear weapons and ICBMs in a bid to win the US’ respect and get it to engage in talks.
Kim Jong-un might be ruthless when it comes to palace power struggles, but having gone to school in Switzerland, his ideas about the nation and its territory are not as feudalistic and rigid as Mao’s were. He does not demand that South Korea accept the idea of “one Korea” and unification on his terms just because he is the one with nuclear weapons.
With respect to nationhood and international standing, the two Koreas are better off than Taiwan.
In 1936, Mao told US journalist Edgar Snow that the Chinese Communist Party would support independence for Japan’s colonies Korea and Taiwan after Japan was ousted from China.
Eventually the war did come to an end, and Korea did not just become independent — it became two independent countries supported by the US and the Soviet Union respectively. Taiwan, in contrast, was taken over and placed under martial law by Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) after he occupied it on behalf of the Allied powers.
The 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, known as the San Francisco Peace Treaty, clearly states what should happen to Korea, and also to Taiwan and Penghu, then known as Formosa and the Pescadores.
The treaty text says: “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet [Jeju, Komundo and Ulleungdo].”
Japan did not recognize the independence of Taiwan, but as with Korea, the treaty says that “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”
The only thing missing is that the treaty did not determine to whom this “right, title and claim” should be conceded.
Although the San Francisco Treaty does not recognize Taiwan’s independent status, its wording makes it clear that Taiwan does not belong to China.
Every country should respect Taiwanese’s right to self-determination and their right to establish an independent nation.
By disregarding the terms of the treaty and making military and verbal threats to annex Taiwan, China has proven itself to be more of a rogue than Kim Jong-un.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with