Sunday was the eve of Taiwan Retrocession Day, the anniversary of the day in 1945 when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) claims the Japanese ceded Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC). It was also the day the head of the Chinese delegation to the Tokyo International Film Festival, Jiang Ping (江平), caused a diplomatic incident by insisting that the Taiwanese delegation use the name “Taiwan, China.”
The whole sorry affair has left President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) with egg on his face. His “cross-strait diplomatic truce” bubble has burst. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) honeymoon is over. The mask has slipped, and Taiwanese have caught a glimpse of what lies beneath. No wonder pan-blue politicians have been more vocal in their criticism of Jiang’s words than members of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
It’s a classic case of the Emperor’s new clothes and has exposed how little weight the words Ma used in his Taiwan Retrocession Day address actually carried when he said Taiwan is already the Taiwan of the Taiwanese people, the Taiwan of the Republic of China. All that served to do was muddy the waters even further.
Ma mentioned the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration and the official Japanese surrender, saying these provided the basis for the ceding of Taiwan to the ROC, and therefore the foundations of Taiwan Retrocession, and that they were binding. He added that then-US president Harry Truman said, back in 1950, that each country accepted that the ROC on Taiwan had sovereignty.
Retrocession Day was established by the KMT government and is an important part of the KMT’s claim that it has a legitimate right to rule Taiwan. The fact that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) took over responsibility for the rule of Taiwan from Japan means that rule by the KMT (or the ROC) in Taiwan is both proper and legitimate. This is the first Taiwan.
The DPP has a different interpretation. In its view the KMT government in Taiwan was worse than the Japanese colonial government that preceded it, because of the 228 Incident and White Terror. For the DPP Taiwan Retrocession Day has negative and objectionable connotations. Moreover, although Japan did surrender in the China theater of war to the Allied Forces, the text of the Treaty of San Francisco merely stated that Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan, but did not specify to which country. This is why many people consider the issue of Taiwan’s sovereignty to be unresolved, and why the DPP government from 2000 to 2008 referred to Taiwan Retrocession Day simply as the anniversary of the end of the war. In this context, Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country. That is the second Taiwan.
The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) arrived at what is known as the “1992 consensus,” the idea that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” The KMT holds that the “one China” is the ROC in Taiwan and not the People’s Republic of China in China. Of course, Beijing disagrees, as Jiang’s insistence has shown. As far as this interpretation goes, Taiwan is merely a province of China, which is where they get “Taiwan, China” from — this is the third Taiwan.
It is hard to say whether there is really a consensus on “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” What is clear is that between the KMT, the DPP and the CCP, there are “three Taiwans, with each party having its own preferred interpretation.”
Jiang’s performance at the Tokyo International Film Festival was for the benefit of the press, but it actually served to close the distance between the KMT and the DPP’s definition of Taiwan. At the same time, it also widened and made the gap between the definition of the two political parties in Taiwan and the CCP clearer than ever.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent