Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) turned a deaf ear to opposition from President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), and insisted on attending the Chinese Communist Party’s (CPP) 70th anniversary celebrations of the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War. His action was lambasted by many. This happened two weeks ago, but following an overview of both the pan-blue and the pan-green camps’ vocal opposition, it is clear that the criticisms have failed to catch the main reason the visit was inappropriate.
This ambiguity has even caused many members of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Standing Committee and retired generals to express sympathy for Lien’s difficulties.
The pan-blue and pan-green camps’ reaction clearly shows that on many issues, Taiwanese are generally more emotional than rational and let subjectivity conceal the facts.
The strongest criticism of Lien is that he served as vice president of the Republic of China (ROC), yet feels comfortable sitting on a bench, watching the same type of missiles that threaten Taiwan being paraded past him. The argument says that China still exhibits strong hostility toward Taiwan, so when a former vice president attends its parade, that weakens the military’s wariness of the enemy and psychological preparedness among the public.
This is clearly a false accusation, for Lien dared to attend the parade precisely because the perception of China as an enemy has weakened long ago. Blaming Lien for this is a somewhat arbitrary condemnation.
Each week there are 800 cross-strait flights and almost 10 million Chinese visit Taiwan each year. Trade volume between the two is valued at US$174.5 billion, Taiwan’s trade surplus is valued at US$74.9 billion and 40 percent of its economy is dependent on China.
If there is any perception of hostility hidden behind these numbers, then Taiwanese are really good at concealing their true emotions.
Another accusation is that Beijing’s grand celebrations were an attempt to monopolize the right to interpret wartime history and Lien’s presence as a former vice president was tantamount to endorsing Beijing’s version.
However, for academics, history is objective and cannot be covered up or distorted by investing a lot of money in large events. Lien’s participation might have left a bad taste in the mouth, but to say that his actions reduced history to ashes is to exaggerate his influence.
Lien’s attendance was indeed unacceptable, but not for the reasons cited above. China making a big deal out of the anniversary, apart from commemorating those who sacrificed their lives, has another, yet unmentioned, intention. This intention is the real reason Lien should not have gone to Beijing.
The Japanese were defeated in 1945, but the CCP was not established until 1949; at the time of the victory, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) did not even exist. The ROC was party to the Japanese surrender and continues to exercise administrative power and sovereignty in Taiwan, meaning that Beijing was commemorating someone else’s victory. What significance does that have?
There is only one reasonable explanation for Beijing’s great celebrations and it is the PRC being the successor of the ROC. Since the ROC no longer exists, the PRC naturally assumes everything that belonged to the ROC; all of the glory and all of the bloodshed. This is why Beijing organized the celebrations, as all the glory reflects on the PRC.
The problem is that the ROC still exists and continues to elect presidents and vice presidents as national leaders in popular elections, and to a certain extent this makes Beijing’s celebrations unreasonable. When Lien, as a former vice president of the ROC, went to Beijing to take part in the celebrations, it certainly made it seem as if Taipei has acknowledged China’s succession to power in 1949. How can the KMT turn a deaf ear to such an important issue?
The leaders of Western powers did not attend the parade. Media speculated that it was because they do not agree with China’s militaristic nature, but it would be more accurate to say that perhaps it is because they understood the symbolic significance of attending the celebrations. If they were to express support for the view that the PRC succeeded the ROC, they would no longer be able to continue to play the cross-strait card.
Why could a former vice president not figure it out, when even Western leaders could understand it?
Yang Tai-shuenn is a professor in the Graduate School of Political Science at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Clare Lear
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS