CCP Must Acknowledge KMT Leadership Role during War Against Japan

CCP Must Acknowledge KMT Leadership Role during War Against Japan
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 2, 2015

Executive Summary: Lien Chan met with Xi Jinping yesterday in Beijing's Great Hall of the People. He used the occasion to air his personal views on the 70th anniversary of the War of Resistance Against Japan. A dispute between Taipei and Beijing over which regime led the war effort erupted during Lien's visit. President Ma, Hau Pei-tsun, and others uttered some harsh words. A few media organizations on the Mainland responded in kind. This made Lien Chan's visit to Beijing a sensitive matter, and magnifyied the impact of everything he said or did in Beijing. Permit us to say what we expect from Lien Chan's visit. Now that Lien Chan has made a formal declaration, this may be a good time to examine the matter.

Full Text Below:

Lien Chan met with Xi Jinping yesterday in Beijing's Great Hall of the People. He used the occasion to air his personal views on the 70th anniversary of the War of Resistance Against Japan. A dispute between Taipei and Beijing over which regime led the war effort erupted during Lien's visit. President Ma, Hau Pei-tsun, and others uttered some harsh words. A few media organizations on the Mainland responded in kind. This made Lien Chan's visit to Beijing a sensitive matter, and magnifyied the impact of everything he said or did in Beijing. Permit us to say what we expect from Lien Chan's visit. Now that Lien Chan has made a formal declaration, this may be a good time to examine the matter.

Basically we support Lien Chan's decision to visit Beijing and take part in the commemoration. Why? Because although we differ with Beijing about which regime led the war effort, the war ended 70 years ago. As we reflect upon this tragedy, one fact stands out. China today is no longer the "sick man of Asia" it was before the war. Taipei and Beijing should understand and reflect upon each other's contribution to the war effort. That is far more meaningful than stonewalling. Beijing is currently waging an all out propaganda campaign. If the KMT, the real hero of the war remains silent, it will be completely marginalized.

As one can easily imagine, Lien Chan's trip has been an arduous one. President Ma and Hau Pei-tsun  have both expressed dissatisfaction with the way the CCP has belittled the KMT's role in the war. As a result, anyone who attends Beijing's commemorative ceremony will be seen as endorsing the CCP's spin on history. If Lien Chan wants to prove otherwise, he must speak out on behalf of Taipei. He must at least make clear that the KMT led the war effort, and made the Republic of China a founding member of the United Nations. These are intractable facts that cannot be denied. Lien Chan may not be the KMT's official spokesperson on the war. But he must at least speak up. Because on this occasion, only he has the chance to do so.

On Taiwan's ideological spectrum, only the blue camp takes the history of the war seriously. Many blue camp members hope the two sides can grow and prosper together, and bring about a rebirth of the Chinese nation. But they are pressured to deny that the KMT led the war effort, or even blank out the role of the Republic of China during World War II. That of course, is impossible. Historical facts cannot be denied. Neither can subjective memories. Much of this is intensely emotional. When Beijing made a movie called "The Cairo Conference", Chiang Kai-shek was not even on the movie poster. Those in charge may be motivated by political correctness. But the results of media spin control hurt many people's feelings. That is why Ma Ying-jeou and Hau Pei-tsun spoke out in such harsh terms.

Regrettably, Lien Chan failed to make these points during the Lien-Xi meeting. He make other points quite well. For example, he said "We can not bear to see a straightforward "Taiwan consciousness" misrepresented as separatist consciousness. That will result in lost opportunities for both sides and take us back to the old stand off," He also said "Taiwan must have confidence in the Mainland's reforms and liberalization. It must develop new markets. It must undergo transformation and upgrading. Its people must participate in regional economic integration and international activities. The two sides must improve communications, learn to work with each other, and find solutions to political problems." These are all arguments we have advanced repeatedly. But as we noted before, Lien Chan bore a responsibility to convey an accurate view of history, regardless of whether the Mainland takes offense. As former chairman of the KMT, that is something he should have communicated.

Unfortunately, Lien Chan completely downplayed the matter. He said the KMT led the war effort on the front lines, while the CCP led it behind the lines. He glossed over the facts to please both sides. As a result the presidential office felt compelled to issue an official disclaimer. Both Lien Chan and Beijing underestimated the degree to which the KMT cared about credit due for the war effort.

During the previous century, the Chinese nation endured a painful war experience. Seventy years have passed, but the pain has not. Many on both sides of the Strait experienced that pain first hand. A grand ceremony to commemorate it is essential. A parade in Beijing to highlight China's ability to safeguard national security and regional peace is also desirable. After all, as a former victim of Japan's war of aggression, the Mainland must prove that it is capable of defending world peace and prosperity.

This of course does not mean the CCP can steal credit for leading the war effort. The historical facts must be made clear. The Kuomintang and the Nationalist government's contribution to the war effort must be acknowledged. Much more needs to be done in this respect. Lien Chan's visit rallied those on Taiwan who support cross-strait peace and prosperity. For this, he deserves recognition. The war ended 70 years ago. The two sides of the Strait have been separated for over 65 years. Beijing should offer Taipei a more positive response, especially with respect to the KMT's role as leader of the war effort.

台灣在乎抗戰話語權 大陸要回應

2015年09月02日 中國時報

連戰昨天在北京人民大會堂會見習近平，並藉機發表他個人對抗戰70周年的看法。由於先前出現兩岸有關抗戰話語權的爭議，馬總統、郝柏村等都說了重話，大陸部分媒體還出現反對的聲音，使得連戰這趟北京行，平添了不少敏感性，他個人在北京的所有言行都被放大檢視。我們早先也曾對連戰此行，表達了我們的期待與建議，如今連戰既已正式做了表白，或許也是一個恰當的時機，對之進行檢視了！

基本上，我們是支持連戰赴北京參與此次紀念活動的，理由很單純，不論海峽兩岸對抗戰的史觀有如何的差異，做為抗戰結束70年的此刻，重新反思這場戰爭所造成的悲劇，彰顯今天中國不再是二戰前的「東亞病夫」，甚至讓兩岸重新認識、省思彼此在抗戰中的角色與貢獻，是遠比抵制或緘默的方式更有意義的。畢竟以目前大陸在有關抗戰史觀上的鋪天蓋地式的宣傳，真正做為主角的國民黨若是完全一語不發，就形同就被邊緣化了。

連戰此行之艱鉅，其實可以想像。由於早先包括馬總統及郝柏村在內的發言，都對大陸貶低國民黨在抗戰中的角色感到不滿，因而對任何出席大陸這場紀念儀式的人士，甚至將之視為是在對大陸有關抗戰史觀的背書，連戰如果要證明他無意這樣做，他就必須將台灣這邊的聲音帶過去。至少國民黨怎麼領導抗戰，怎麼讓中華民國成為聯合國的創始會員國等，這些史實怎麼說都是不容抹煞的，連戰就算不是國民黨抗戰論述的代言人，最起碼這些聲音是要傳達出來的。因為在那個場合，也只有他才有機會發出這個聲音。

要知道，在台灣當下意識型態光譜上，認真看待抗戰史實者，大多是偏藍營人士，他們中間許多人或許渴望兩岸有一天能共榮發展，再造中華民族的盛世；但要他們因此就必須否認國民黨在抗戰中領導角色，甚至完全抹去中華民國在二戰中不可取代的歷史位置，那恐怕是不可能的任務，因為客觀的史實是無從篡改的，主觀的記憶也是不能塗抹的，這中間有很大部分所觸及的還是情感的部分，就好像大陸拍攝《開羅會議》，蔣介石完全在電影海報上消失，就算主事者是基於特定政治正確考量，但經過媒體渲染的結果，是傷到許多人的感情的。這亦是為包括馬英九、郝柏村在內的發言都很重的原因。

讓人遺憾的是，連戰在連習會的發言，並沒有很完整地傳達這些聲音。他有些話說得很好，例如他說「我們不忍也不容純樸的『台灣意識』，被誤導為分裂意識，致使兩岸失去時代機遇，走回對抗互斥的老路」，他也主張「台灣應該自信地藉著大陸深化改革開放，來開拓市場、轉型升級；民眾對參與區域經濟整合和擴大國際活動空間，也有強烈需求。這都有待兩岸加強溝通、持續磨合，為解答政治難題探索途徑」，這其實都是我們所一再主張的論調，但也如我們先前所述，連戰此行還肩負傳達正確抗戰史觀的任務，不論內容大陸方面是否會覺得刺耳，做為國民黨的前任主席，他終究是得傳達。

可惜的是，連戰卻完全淡化了這一部分，他用國民黨領導正面戰場，共產黨領導敵後戰場兩面討好的修辭帶過一點，結果竟引來了總統府正面的反駁。這意味了一點，不僅連戰，包括北京都低估了國民黨對抗戰話語權在乎的程度。

做為上世紀讓整個中華民族所經歷的極為慘痛的一場戰爭，儘管已結束了70年，但傷痛的記憶依舊在，包括海峽兩岸在內都有許多人親歷過那段不堪回首的歷史，用盛大的儀式去紀念它是必須的，北京用閱兵的儀典，來彰顯今天的中國軍隊已有能力維護國家安全與區域和平的能力，也是合宜的。畢竟做為一個昔日侵略戰爭中的受害國，大陸必須要證明其為捍衛全球和平發展的穩定力量。

當然，這並不表示中共可以壟斷抗戰的話語權，如何讓史實說話，對當年國府及國民黨對抗戰貢獻，給予更公平的認識與評價，或還有很大的努力空間。連戰此行為凝聚台灣支持兩岸和平發展力量的勇往直前勇氣值得肯定。抗戰已結束70年，兩岸分裂已超過65年，大陸方面或許應更正面回應台灣，尤其國民黨對大陸處理抗戰歷史問題的疑慮。