To Highlight Taiwan Retrocession Is to Defend Republic of China

To Highlight Taiwan Retrocession Is to Defend Republic of China

China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)

A Translation

September 18, 2015

Executive Summary:

Does the KMT government care about the survival and development of the Republic of China? Does it value the historical facts about the Republic of China? Does it want to strengthen the discourse on the connections between the Republic of China and Taiwan, and the connection between the two sides of the Strait? If it does, then the 70th anniversary of Taiwan retrocession must be treated as a festival of historic importance. It must be made a grand commemoration, with more substance in its narrative, and more varied, colorful activities and celebrations to highlight the historic significance of Taiwan's retrocession. This will help preserve the Republic of China. This will differentiate between the real Republic of China and the Taiwan independence movement's "Frozen Republic of China" and "Hollowed-Out Republic of China.”

Full Text Below:

The 2016 election, by accident or otherwise, now revolves around the Republic of China – its definition, its history and its future. Why did we say it could be an accident? During past national elections on Taiwan, the core issue was usually reunification vs. independence. The dispute was usually between Taiwan independence and opposition to Taiwan independence. It was usually between maintaining the status quo and anti-Sinophilia/anti-selling out Taiwan. Since the Sunflower Student Movement, the so-called “native independence” and “natural independence” rhetorics have become ubiquitous. A major battle between reunification and independence was to be imminent. But Tsai Ing-wen is waging a campaign based on maintaining the status quo. While remaining deliberately ambiguous on issues of Diaoyutai, adjustments to history textbook guidelines, “comfort women,” Japanese colonial rule, and the commemoration of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. She has announced her intention to participate in the National Day celebrations in Taipei. As a result, the struggle between reunification and independence has suddenly become a struggle between conflicting definitions of the Republic of China and conflicting historical interpretations of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.

Why did we say it could be something other than an accident? Mainland China has risen. Taiwan independence consciousness has deepened. The path of peaceful cross-Strait development that began in 2005 has now reached a turning point. The political status of the two sides and the Republic of China's survival and future have become issues the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan cannot avoid. To deal with the political status of the two sides of the Strait, they must face up the existence of the Republic of China. To deal with the status quo of the Republic of China, they must clear up questions about a number of lingering controversies bequeathed by the history of the Republic of China. These include the meaning as well as achievements and shortcomings of the Xinhai Revolution, the evaluation and definition of the KMT/CCP civil war, the facts and interpretations of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and the facts and significance of Taiwan's retrocession to China. These issues are inescapable and cannot be evaded.

Under Tsai Ing-wen, the DPP has adopted a "maintain the status quo" path. It has announced that it will accept the constitutional order of the Republic of China.  It will participate in this year's Republic of China National Day celebrations. It has even posed as a defender of the ROC's leadership role during the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, and, to the surprise of many, criticized Lien Chan for attending the victory parade in Beijing. It is deliberately creating a so-called Blue-Green consensus in order to undermine KMT solidarity and the KMT's historical narrative.

Within the same parameters of time and space, DDP mouthpieces are proclaiming that the DPP has always defended the Republic of China, even though the DPP flatly refuses to repeal the Taiwan independence party platform, and refuses to forsake, or to indicate its opposition to, Taiwan independence. This confirms that the DPP's real intent is, in reality, to hollow out the “Republic of China.” It is to freeze the Republic of China. It is to achieve its endgame of Taiwan independence, by hollowing out the Republic of China.

The DPP has heard voices of the public and DPP insiders alike that are demanding the abolition of the Taiwan independence party platform. But the DPP's pro forma response has been to claim that the Taiwan independence party platform has essentially been frozen, and that the Taiwan independence party platform has been blanketed by the DPP’s Resolution on Taiwan's Future. But the Resolution on Taiwan's Future asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, its sovereignty is limited to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and other nearby islands." It asserts that "although Taiwan is called the Republic of China in accordance with the current constitution, it and the People's Republic of China are mutually exclusive." The status of the Republic of China according to the DPP is temporary, vague, and a total departure from the premises and vision "prior to national reunification" in the "Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China." Naturally, it flatly contradicts Tsai Ing-wen's pledges to "maintain the status quo" and "abide by the Republic of China's existing constitutional order."

The Resolution on Taiwan's Future is ostensibly a realistic compromise revision of the DPP's Taiwan independence party platform. In fact, it is an evasive maneuver by the Taiwan independence movement. Instead of repudiating the Republic of China outright, it asserts that the "Republic of China is Taiwan," and that "Taiwan is the Republic of China." The Resolution on Taiwan's Future is simply Taiwan independence Version 2.0. Meanwhile, the DPP’s "Resolution on a Normal Nation" adopted in 2007 calls for the “rectification of national titles and the authoring of a new constitution.” Substantively speaking, it is even more radical than the Taiwan independence party platform. The DPP's "Resolution on a Normal Nation” is even more recent than the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Therefore, it represents the DPP's current position. The DPP now postures itself as “defender of the Republic of China.” It is indeed deceiving part of the electorate. This deception has to be subject to strict scrutiny. The Republic of China government and the ruling KMT must do something about this.

Recently, Lien Chan went to the Mainland to participate in the "70th anniversary Commemoration of the Chinese Peoples' War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and Victory in the Global Anti-Fascist War." His visit provoked political controversy. All these years, the cross-Strait dispute was over the historical interpretation of the war. But the Mainland has been changing its interpretation of history, and the divergences between the two sides have been narrowed. It has been gradually rehabilitating the image and contributions of the National Revolutionary Army, especially in drama series in TV programs on the Mainland. Remaining differences should be controlled and resolved gradually, rather than widened deliberately. In particular, they should not undermine progression and atmospherics of peaceful cross-strait relations.

Lien Chan's visit to the Mainland provoked controversy. It also prompted many people to rethink the ROC government's commemoration of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. Why has the ROC government been more and more passive in commemorating the event over the past few years? The eight-year long War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression that led to the recovery of Taiwan is closely related to the legitimacy of the Republic of China on Taiwan, and inseparable from its legality. Why so little interest in commemorating the historical facts? Why have the facts and significance of Taiwan retrocession been buried? Taiwan Retrocession Day is not even accorded the respect of a legal holiday, aside from being called a Commemorative Day on the calendar. The so-called commemoration is at best pro forma and fails utterly to highlight its historical importance and practical significance.

Does the KMT government care about the survival and development of the Republic of China? Does it value the historical facts about the Republic of China? Does it want to strengthen the discourse on the connections between the Republic of China and Taiwan, and the connection between the two sides of the Strait? If it does, then the 70th anniversary of Taiwan retrocession must be treated as a festival of historic importance. It must be made a grand commemoration, with more substance in its narrative, and more varied, colorful activities and celebrations to highlight the historic significance of Taiwan's retrocession. This will help preserve the Republic of China. This will differentiate between the real Republic of China and the Taiwan independence movement's "Frozen Republic of China" and "Hollowed-Out Republic of China.”

Attachment : none