Taiwan's 228 Incident and the Tiananmen Square Incident share a number of similarities. Both derived from movements for reform, rather than outright revolts. In the former, the Settlement Committee, consisting of community leaders from all major cities in Taiwan, had asked for an end to official corruption and the establishment of local autonomy. In the latter, the students in the square merely petitioned for the elimination of corruption and freedom of the press, speech and assembly.
In both cases, however, the government deliberately mis-represented the nature of the protest. General Chen Yi
Both protests were terminated by brute force and the widespread killing of unarmed citizens. The KMT soldiers massacred 28,000 citizens, first indiscriminately and then systematically targeting community leaders. The PLA killed some 3,000 students and civilians in and around Tiananmen Square.
Both events are significant because of the effect they had on the destiny of Taiwan and China. In Taiwan, the massacre after the incident forced Taiwanese to realize that they were quite distinct from the "mainland" Chinese in their value systems and their poli-tical culture.
The incident sowed the seeds of the Taiwan independence movement. Given a free choice, without the threat of military invasion by China, a great majority of the people on Taiwan would opt for independence any day. The Communist Party of China (CPC) has lost the mandate of heaven. The Tiananmen massacre marked the beginning of the end for the CPC's monopoly of power.
The regime is unpopular and plagued with endemic corruption and expanding official abuse of power, including the widespread torture of dissidents and religious practitioners. China's environment is deteriorating quickly and thousands of riots and demonstrations involving disgruntled workers and farmers take place across China each year. The Beijing government is clinging to power with brute force.
What lessons can people in Taiwan learn from these two events? While the CPC regime may be doomed in the long run, it is trying to legitimize its rule by fanning expansionist nationalism and by diverting its people's passion to the "sacred" national goal of liberating Taiwan. A calamity similar to the 1947 massacre could befall the people of Taiwan again, unless they can demonstrate their courage and resolve to defend their hard-won freedom, and thereby win the support of fellow democracies.
On the 54th anniversary of the 228 Incident, it is prudent to ponder the consequences of "political integration with China." First, Taiwan's democracy will be dismantled, just as the Goddess of Freedom was quickly toppled in Beijing. Freedom of expression, religion and assembly will be suppressed. Second, all private property will be confiscated. The standard of living will plunge to the level of the Chinese people. Finally, life under CPC rule will be devoid of dignity. The life of every citizen will be at the mercy of the CPC's coercion.
If Taiwan were to fall into China's grasp, peacefully or otherwise, Beijing's ambitions for hegemony over East Asia and beyond would get a hefty boost. PLA strategists are already openly discussing a war with the US. In such a conflict, Taiwanese youth will be drafted into the PLA and forced to fight on the wrong side of history. Do the people of Taiwan really wish to fight for the hegemony of China and against the forces of democracy and freedom?
If the people of Taiwan want a bright future, then the goal should not be "a future `one China.'" A bright future can only come from an independent existence apart from China. The Chen Shui-bian
The people of Taiwan can best honor the memory of the fallen heroes of 228 by resolutely defending their sovereignty and democracy. By doing so, they can also hasten the day that the dreams of the Tiananmen victims are realized in China.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS