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the People’s Republic of China — and to a somewhat lesser extent Korea — continue to ground their foreign policy in outdated concepts.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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS