Over the past several days, Taiwan has been engaged in a heated debate over China’s grand military parade to mark the end of World War II. The focus of this debate has differed from that in the Western media, which has focused on China’s preparations, the cost of the celebrations to the public, the country’s saber-rattling and plans to cut 300,000 troops. Instead, the Taiwanese debate has focused on the decision of former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) and a group of retired politicians and officers to attend the parade.
In order to increase the visibility and legitimacy of this face-saving project, perhaps China’s biggest in the past few decades, Beijing not only invited many national leaders, but also a large number of people in Taiwan — soldiers who participated in the war against Japan and retired party and government officials, including Lien Chan, former minister of the interior and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Lin Feng-cheng (林豐正) and New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming (郁慕明). These developments were met with protests from across party lines by people who felt that the attendance was not in line with public sentiment and expectations.
In a rare display, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) stood united in its criticism of Lien and others who attended the parade, with the Presidential Office first and then followed by the Mainland Affairs Council and the Ministry of National Defense criticizing their action. Ma himself said that Lien’s decision was deplorable and regrettable, while the KMT issued a statement expressing regret and incomprehension.
The main reason the government and society at large place such importance on this issue is the two sides of the Taiwan Strait hold diametrically opposed views of the war against Japan.
What, then, is the view of the Republic of China (ROC) government and how does the Chinese government look at the war against Japan?
Following the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the war against Japan has been one of the most important components of its education and propaganda. From elementary-school textbooks to the teaching of politics, history and other social scenes, to movies and TV series, the focus has been on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) guerrilla troops, the bases set up by the party and stories about the heroes of the Eighth Army. These are the main themes of stories of the war against Japan dealing with tunnel warfare, land mine warfare, the five fighters at Langya Mountain and “chicken feather” letters that have been told for decades and are familiar to everyone in China.
This omnipresent image of the CCP’s brave resistance and the KMT’s passivity during the war against Japan and the conclusion that the CCP led the united front in the war is deeply rooted in Chinese society.
However, this view of the war ignores the existence of the ROC government — which provided the mainstay of the resistance — rejects Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) leadership of the nation’s armies and downplays the huge contribution and sacrifices of the Nationalist Army, which provided the main force in the war of resistance: The Nationalist Army initiated 22 campaigns, or 1,127 battles — including the Battle of Taierzhuang; 206 of its generals died and more than 3.3 million of its soldiers were wounded or killed; all its naval vessels were sunk; 4,321 pilots lost their lives and 2,418 planes were lost. The list goes on. All these sacrifices remain unknown to Chinese who grew up under the CCP’s tutelage.
With the development of the Internet, some modern Chinese historians have started to pay attention to the role of the Nationalist government and its army in the war against Japan.
However, as part of the preparations for the big military parade earlier this month, all mention of the war against Japan has had to comply with the CCP view that the party was the main force in the war against Japan.
From a Taiwanese point of view, it is easy to see that it was extremely inappropriate for retired government and party officials and officers to attend the military parade, which distorted the history of the war of resistance, had the People’s Liberation Army — which has not abandoned its option of invading Taiwan — as its main actor and whose main purpose was to increase the authority of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and consolidate the CCP’s hold on power.
Cross-strait exchanges have intensified over the years and these have, to a certain extent, been beneficial to maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait.
However, there are independent governments on each side of the Taiwan Strait, both of which have no jurisdiction over the other. They also have different names. These are the reasons why ROC citizens must stand firm against undermining the nation’s dignity and identity in their exchanges with China. These are the dos and don’ts of cross-strait relations.
John Lim is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Modern History and an adjunct associate professor at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS