I have been struck by recent moves out of Tokyo, particularly as they relate to Taiwan. It appears that Japan has decided to be more forthcoming about its support for Taiwan’s separate status, bringing it closer to Washington’s current stance — especially as regards the defense of the island. This comes after many years when the Japanese seemed constrained by Beijing’s rigid conception of the problem, which has sought to trap Tokyo in early post-World War II concepts. Yet today relations between Tokyo and Taipei seem to be flourishing. I note that former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently made an appearance at a forum in Taiwan via a video link and that there is talk of a possible visit by him next year. The current Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, has also demonstrated his respect for Taiwan and its people in his early statements.
Unfortunately, the People’s Republic of China — and to a somewhat lesser extent Korea — continue to ground their foreign policy in outdated concepts. They act as if the war ended yesterday, and no amount of change or reconciliation is enough.
I view Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), the father of Taiwan democracy, as an example of the benevolent aspects of Japanese rule. Born in 1923, Lee grew up speaking fluent Japanese and was educated at Kyoto University during the war years. I recall visiting Lee at both his Taipei home and his country house in nearby Taoyuan. Lee would take me down into his extensive library, and proudly display his collection of Japanese language books. What came through is that President Lee had great respect for Japan and what it had done for Taiwan over the years. This even though Lee’s older brother had been conscripted into the Japanese army and died fighting for Japan in World War Two.
The history is well known. An assertive Japan began its military expansion over a hundred years ago and built a massive empire through force of arms. This ended with a crushing defeat by a multinational Allied force in 1945. The culminating blow was the dropping of two nuclear bombs on the island nation, forcing the militarists who had led the country down this doleful path to capitulate. The government that emerged embarked on a dramatically new course, foreswearing the use of force as a tool of foreign policy. All their colonial conquests — as well as a few pieces of traditional Japanese territory — were stripped away. Tokyo proceeded to build both a thriving democracy and a dynamic and innovative economy. Yes, there was a time when some skeptics scoffed at the expression “Made in Japan.” But before long the world was pounding a path to the land of the Rising Sun in pursuit of business and trade.
The wounds of World War II were lasting, particularly in colonized Korea and mainland China, but also throughout southeast Asia. However, I would argue that the statute of limitations has expired on the idea that Japan must forever be viewed as an unreconstructed militarist society.
The backdrop to the Japan-Taiwan warming has deep roots. A weak China ceded Taiwan to Japan after being defeated in a war in 1895. Over the following fifty years, Japan played an important, and largely positive, role in the development of my favorite Asian island. They methodically built dams, railroads, factories and schools across the island. Yes, at times their rule was harsh, particularly in suppressing local rebellions. This was especially the case for tribal settlements in Taiwan’s mountains, which were among the last to succumb to the outsiders’ invasion. I recall the abundance of Japanese tourists I would encounter at the Palace Museum, Taroko Gorge, and other points of interest when I lived in Taiwan. On a lighter note, the Japanese introduced baseball to the island, and it is one of the most popular sports there to this day.
This warming trend is significant from the geo-political perspective. Should the mainland escalate its aggression against Taiwan through force of arms, America’s longstanding military support for the island would undoubtedly come into play. But any successful defense of Taiwan would of necessity require at a minimum logistical support from Japan. Our military bases in Japan would have to play a central role in — and successful counter to — PRC aggression across the Taiwan Strait.
The real solution to this festering problem would be a dramatic shift in the attitude of Beijing’s leaders toward Taiwan. It is time they stop relitigating the Second World War and develop a more temperate policy toward Taipei. The existence of extensive Taiwan investments on the mainland, as well as a thriving tourist business, could serve as a springboard to such a shift. But until this happens, the authoritarian leaders in Beijing should be under no illusions that the United States would stand idly by if China provoked conflict in the Taiwan Strait, quite possibly with Japanese assistance.
Ambassador Stephen M. Young (ret.) lived in Kaohsiung as a boy over 50 years ago, and served in AIT four times: as a young consular officer (1981-’82), as a language student (1989-’90), as Deputy Director (1998-2001) and as Director (2006-’9). He visits often and writes regularly about Taiwan matters. Young was also US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Consul General to Hong Kong during his 33-year career as a foreign service officer. He has a BA from Wesleyan University and a PhD from the University of Chicago.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
RSS