Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: American Institute in Taiwan/Public Domain
AN UNUSUAL SPAT has broken out about Taiwan’s status between the KMT and DPP.
The matter at hand returns to comments by representatives of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), the American de facto embassy in Taiwan in the absence of official diplomatic relations, that China has sought to frame World War II-era documents about Taiwan as suggesting Taiwan had been ceded to China when this was untrue. The comments led to immediate criticism from the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation, which suggested that this claim was dangerous for Taiwan, as it would escalate cross-strait tensions and breach the US’ “Six Assurances” to Taiwan.
But AIT later issued a statement reiterating this point. Specifically, AIT stated, “China intentionally mischaracterizes World War II-era documents, including the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Treaty of San Francisco, to try to support its coercive campaign to subjugate Taiwan.”
Although it was questioned whether AIT made such statements with the backing of the State Department, the State Department has since affirmed that AIT’s position is correct.
Some media speculation, then, has questioned whether the US has shifted position on Taiwan’s status. It is commonplace for media in Taiwan to speculate about statements by AIT and if they represent some shift in America’s position on Taiwan, even if comments by AIT must be understood in context of whether they have the backing of the State Department and the US executive branch.
The debate reflects the shifts in discussions of Taiwan’s legal sovereignty in past years. The Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Treaty of San Francisco were previously rarely discussed, comparatively obscure documents when it comes to Taiwanese history, but moves have been made to teach about them in school textbooks.
Such documents do, in fact, not specify who receives Taiwan after Japan’s ceding of sovereignty over it, much as how America’s position on Taiwan recognizes but does not affirm China’s view of Taiwan as part of it. This is a way that the US came into negotiations in the three legal documents with a stronger bargaining position and carved out more wiggle room for itself in the final agreement that resulted.
The DPP has taken the view, in line with AIT, that the documents do not specify who receives Taiwan. This befits the historical view from the DPP that claims over Taiwan by both the KMT via the ROC and the CCP via the PRC is illegitimate. At the same time, under the Lai administration, the DPP has moved toward the position that the ROC has acquired legitimacy in Taiwan through free and fair elections held in the process of democratization.
In the meantime, members of the KMT, such as Hau Lung-bin, have hit out against the claim. Hau stated, “The ‘Taiwan’s status is undetermined’ argument is a tactic used by the U.S. to counter Communist China, [but] Taiwan cannot accept this, because it undermines the fundamental fact that we, the Taiwanese people, are the sole and rightful owners of Taiwan, both now and in the future!”
Hau’s claims are ironic, in that the KMT has otherwise pushed back against the equivalency of the ROC and Taiwan that the DPP has increasingly embraced in the last decade. It is clear that the KMT’s historical view is still that Taiwan belongs to some version of “China.” Of course, it is also clear that the KMT has long since abandoned its historical stance that it has rightful sovereignty over China, not the CCP.
Still, it is to be seen how much contention about historical treaties and historical views on sovereignty comes to impact current political contention between the DPP and KMT. The general public very likely still cares more about the threats to contemporary democracy that Taiwan faces from China or domestic discontents than views on Taiwan’s sovereignty based on documents from over seventy years ago. Nevertheless, as the KMT has increasingly come to embrace US-skeptic views at a time that Taiwan has become increasingly close to the US under DPP presidential administrations, it is noteworthy to see the KMT directly take a stand against the US here. As such, the controversy goes to show the current political orientation of the KMT at present.