On Oct. 10, the nation celebrated Double Ten National Day, commemorating the 1911 Wuchang Uprising that led to the establishment of the Republic of China (ROC) in 1912. Today marks Retrocession Day, to commemorate Japan’s surrender of Taiwan and Penghu in 1945, and the “return” of those territories to the ROC after 50 years of Japanese colonial rule. There is a problem in that timeline.
The birth of a nation speaks of beginnings, hope and potential. Retrocession suggests a restitution of a natural order: Not a beginning, but a point from which a process rudely interrupted can start anew. Whether to celebrate the birth of the ROC as Taiwan’s national day depends on the view of the relationship between the ROC and Taiwan. Retrocession Day is far more complicated.
The historical basis for saying that the “retrocession” meant “the return of the former Japanese colonies of Taiwan and Penghu” is shaky; that they were returned to a specific government is questionable; that they were returned to the ROC is chronologically inaccurate — the Qing Dynasty ceded these territories to Imperial Japan in 1895, almost two decades before the ROC existed — and the implication of this for the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) claim that Taiwan and Penghu now belong to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a matter of inventive interpretation, as the PRC was established even later, in 1949, years after Japan’s surrender.
There was no Chinese victory over Japan to end the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937 to 1945. That war was ended by the Allies’ victory in the Pacific Theater with the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Japan’s surrender signaled its surrender to the Allies, it was not in any way a transfer of sovereignty, which would have required a treaty. The Allies asked the representatives of the ROC to receive the Japanese surrender on their behalf, not to officially assume sovereignty. By some accounts the surrender ceremony took place in Taipei’s Zhongshan Hall. At the time the location was known as the Taihoku Public Hall: The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), still active in China, later renamed it Zhongshan after the founder of the ROC.
The Allies considered the sovereign status of Taiwan to be undetermined pending a treaty. That never happened; the CCP expelled the KMT from China in 1949, ironically leaving Taiwan’s status undetermined.
The PRC and ROC cannot even agree on the years of the Second Sino-Japanese War: The former officially marks the beginning as the Sept. 18, 1931, Mukden Incident. From one perspective, to understand cross-strait tensions today, you have to understand that the ROC and the PRC are still at war. A more extreme perspective is that the representative of China, be it the PRC or the ROC, is still at war with Japan.
Speaking in 2015, the 70th anniversary of Retrocession Day, former Veterans Affairs Commission chairman Hsu Li-nung (許歷農) said that the war with Japan was far from over, and that Japan has cultivated pro-Taiwan independence advocates, including Japanese not deported from Taiwan at the end of the war.
Modern vernacular uses phrases such as “alternative facts” in a “post-truth world,” but there is little new in this. Facts are not established, they are plucked from the flow of historical events and circumstances to feed a narrative, narratives are used to support agendas, and everyone has their own agenda. Retrocession Day is a perfect example of this.
If Retrocession Day means anything in Taiwan today, it should be an opportunity for reflection, clarification and consensus of what it describes and what it means.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS