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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing