Today, on the anniversary of the 228 massacre, Taiwan will hold a nationwide commemoration of the slaughter of its native leaders by linking together a chain of volunteers who will hold hands along a road spanning the length of the nation. Up to 1 million people will participate, many of them survivors of the incident.
This event, the brainchild of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), is the first large-scale public acknowledgement of the atrocities that occurred at the hands of Chinese troops under former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1947.
President Chen Shui-bian(陳水扁) is channeling this emotion into a national referendum on China's military threat to coincide with the March 20 election. Last December, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) complained bitterly to the administration of US President George W. Bush that the referendum was an attempt to change the "status quo." Bush allowed China to save face by his public acknowledgement of concern.
At the same time, Bush quietly transferred a few B-52 bombers and two nuclear submarines to Guam, and had the US Navy's Seventh Fleet make a friendly call on Shanghai.
The rapid democratization of Taiwan since 1996 has finally allowed the Taiwanese to publicly acknowledge 228 without fear of retribution. At the same time, it has caused China to scramble for a plausible definition of its relationship to Taiwan within its "one China" concept.
This is difficult because Taiwan has already satisfied many of China's stated conditions for war without suffering any unpleasant consequences. It has officially expressed its independent status, indefinitely delayed "reunification," allowed foreign military personnel (especially those of the US) on its soil -- and some even feel it may be a closet nuclear power.
Having threatened action for so long, China now stands to lose face in a large way. The Taiwanese, in the meantime, feel more distant than ever from China.
After all, this "one China" thing all started back in the days of totalitarian rule by Chiang, when the will of the Taiwanese people was never considered. Chen has told China directly that the concept of "one China" is "abnormal thinking," and went on to say, "Taiwan is, and has long been, an independent, sovereign nation ... the Taiwanese people cannot accept the idea of `one country, two systems' like Hong Kong or Macau."
How much stronger a declaration of independence does China need before launching an attack?
Calling Chen a "traitor," who speaks only for a minority of Taiwanese "separatists," and warning of "serious consequences" for defying Beijing seem all that Beijing can muster.
In a sign that the US may be getting fed up with China's belligerence and unilateral proclamations, recent comments by US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Randall Schriver in support of Taiwan's right to participate in the referendum process were surprisingly blunt. When asked "Should Taiwan focus a public consensus on devoting more resources to face the missile threat?" Schriver replied, "We think that's an absolute `Yes.'"
When asked if Taiwan should engage in talks with China without preconditions, he responded, "Absolutely."
Perhaps the Bush administration has finally decided to call China's bluff.
Chen and Lee are acutely aware that the best protection against a repeat of 228 is world recognition of the true will of the vast majority of Taiwanese to determine their own future. They will try to accomplish this through the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally and the united voice of the people expressed through the referendum process.
James Gardner is a doctor in private family practice in San Francisco, California.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS