A number of students have been taking part in a hunger strike as part of demonstrations organized by the pan-blues at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. The Chinese-language media in the US have since printed sensationalist stories of how Wu'er Kaixi (吾爾開希) and Shen Tong (沈彤), both prominent members of the 1989 pro-democracy protests in China which ended with the Tiananmen massacre, participated in the hunger strike. The pair said that when they visited the scene, they felt something akin to the atmosphere that day in Tiananmen Square. According to Wu'er, the media and the law in Taiwan were being controlled by the government, and he wanted to give his support to the people.
I cannot help but pity Wu'er. The Tiananmen massacre happened 15 years ago, and he is now almost 40 years old. It seems that with the passage of time he has lost the ability to differentiate between dictatorship and democracy. He seems to think Taipei is Beijing, and muddles the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) with the Chinese Communist Party. His values are utterly confused. After more than a decade living in the free world, Wu'er doesn't seem to have learned anything.
The students who gathered in Tiananmen on that day in June were protesting against a dictatorial government that had deprived more than a billion Chinese of the freedom of choice. Taiwan, on the other hand, has already had three elections in which its president was directly elected, in addition to countless democratic local and legislative elections. How is it possible to equate democratic Taiwan, in which the government is elected by the people, with China?
The students taking part in the Tiananmen protests resorted to hunger strikes because this was the only way to make themselves heard. The media and legal processes were completely controlled by the Communist Party. Taiwan, by contrast, is already well along the road toward a healthy democracy and enjoys freedom of the press. Sure, the government has its problems, but it owes its existence to democratic elections. Sure, there is room for improvement in the media and the legal system, but at least they are free and independent.
How can Wu'er justify saying that these mechanisms are being controlled by the DPP? It is common knowledge that a large part of the media is actually biased in favor of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party.
The US has also seen its share of chaotic elections, but the losers never provoked demonstrations, nor did students amass in front of government buildings and start hunger strikes. Everything was done through legal channels. In a society governed by the rule of law, people should act like citizens, not form mobs.
People like Wu'er Kaixi ought to count themselves lucky to have been able to move from a dictatorial system in China to a free Taiwan. Fifteen years later, Wu'er and others don't seem to understand the value of freedom.
It leaves me wondering: What exactly was it that they were fighting for in Tiananmen Square?
Cao Changching is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS