On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.”
Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.”
“The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said.
“I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States.”
Kishida also talked about the formation of multilateral regional frameworks alongside cooperation through the G7 and ASEAN and said that the US-Japan alliance is helping to strengthen this tendency.
The most noteworthy thing about Kishida’s speech was his emphasis on the US-Japan alliance, saying that the two countries are bound together by the need to safeguard their common goals and interests.
Kishida’s remarks laid out the two countries’ new global strategic arrangement for all to see.
There has long been a certain degree of discord between the US and Japan over the Okinawa islands, which remains unresolved.
One aspect of the discord is about the Diaoyutais (釣魚台列嶼), which Japan calls the Senkaku Islands. When the US returned Okinawa to Japan in 1972, although Washington considered the Diaoyutais to be part of Okinawa and they have ostensibly been listed as belonging to Tonoshiro town in Ishigaki City, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan, the US did not actually specify which country had territorial sovereignty over the islands.
This situation can be compared to that of Taiwan from 1949 to 1971, when the government of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) became an exiled Chinese regime that took control of Taiwan and ruled it by force.
However, the Chiang regime was still supported by the US, which enabled it to go on using the national title of the Republic of China and occupy China’s seat in the UN General Assembly, where it claimed to be the sole legitimate government of China, and to stay on as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.
However, Taiwan and the Penghu islands have been taken for a ride by this twist of fate.
After the end of World War II, the Allies first awarded trusteeship of Taiwan proper and Penghu to the Chiang regime, which at that time still truly represented China.
From then until 1971, when the Chiang regime was expelled from the UN, Taiwan proper and Penghu, whose total population at the time was less than 16 million, were forced to pay, on behalf of the Chiang regime, the UN membership fee for China, whose population then numbered 600 million.
However, from 1945 to this day, Taiwan and the Penghu islands have not belonged to China for even one day.
Of course, that the Chiang government effectively ruled over Taiwan and was until 1971 recognized by the UN as the sole legitimate government of China never led, even for one day, to the Taiwan Strait being recognized by the international community as territorial or inland waters of China.
That is because, from the perspective of global strategic needs, the status of the Taiwan Strait is a key interest of the US and the international community, and they would never allow such a recognition to happen.
Moreover, even during World War II, the island-hopping strategy employed by the Allied powers had already clearly demonstrated this strategic principle.
Of course, this also explains why the US’ Taiwan Relations Act only covers Taiwan and Penghu, but not Kinmen and Matsu.
The reason for this is that the territorial sovereignty over Kinmen and Matsu does indeed belong to China.
Former Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) left Kinmen and Matsu for Chiang, who was occupying Taiwan, to create an international propaganda effect of pretending that the Chinese Civil War was still under way.
Even now, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) can still use Kinmen and Matsu like two arms that belong to China to cling tightly onto Taiwan and Penghu, thus sowing confusion under the pretext that this is an internal affair of China that brooks no outside interference.
The same logic tells us why, if China ever decides to invade and annex Taiwan, the situation that former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe repeatedly predicted would really come to pass, namely that “if something happens to Taiwan, it means something happens to Japan.”
It is very likely that something would happen to Japan first, because if China wants to launch a successful invasion of Taiwan, it would first have to paralyze Okinawa and the Diaoyutais, and this clearly concerns the key interests of the US, Japan and other members of the international community.
Kishida’s speech to the US Congress made him sound like a spokesman for the US-Japan alliance.
Not afraid to name names, he explained why a new global strategic layout is needed to cope with China’s aggressive expansionism and protect world peace, democracy and freedom.
To this end, Kishida emphasized the present and future close alliance between Japan and the US, and demonstrated Tokyo’s willingness and determination to shoulder their joint responsibilities and defend their common interests.
Over the past three years, Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine and Xi’s repeated revelations of his ambitions have caused the situation in Asia, and especially in the region encompassing Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, to become a lot more serious.
Standing as it does on the edge of a maelstrom, Taiwan must take firmer steps and clearly demonstrate its determination to stand in a united front with the US and Japan, build a closer alliance and defend itself to the end if need be. If Taiwan responds well to crises, it would be able to grasp better opportunities.
Kishida delivered his speech to the US Congress just more than one month before president-elect William Lai’s (賴清德) May 20 inauguration.
Hopefully the analysis presented in this article can give Lai and his team a fair amount of enlightenment and encouragement.
Ten Len-phone is a retired radio program host.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
China’s partnership with Pakistan has long served as a key instrument in Beijing’s efforts to unsettle India. While official narratives frame the two nations’ alliance as one of economic cooperation and regional stability, the underlying strategy suggests a deliberate attempt to check India’s rise through military, economic and diplomatic maneuvering. China’s growing influence in Pakistan is deeply intertwined with its own global ambitions. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative, offers China direct access to the Arabian Sea, bypassing potentially vulnerable trade routes. For Pakistan, these investments provide critical infrastructure, yet they also
RSS