The Chiang family has decided to bury former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (
The question of whether the two Chiangs should be given a state funeral has, however, led to disputes domestically. Considering both international and domestic factors, although affirming the interment of the two in Taiwan as an act of identification with Taiwan, we believe that a family funeral, not a state funeral, is the appropriate ceremony.
Both Chiangs were given a state funeral attended by international guests after their deaths. The two were not, however, buried in Taiwan, because they were to be buried in Nanjing once China had been retaken. If, 30 years on, the two are buried in the military mausoleum on Wuchih Mountain and once again given a state funeral, it must once again be an international ceremony. But we only die once, and there is no international precedent where a second official funeral is held after the first. If the two now are given a second state funeral, the international community may have problems understanding how they have managed to die a second death, 30 and 17 years after their first. And those who participated in the funeral ceremony the first time will probably find it very strange to participate in a second funeral ceremony for the same person.
The three state funerals for the two Chiangs will have been held in 1975, 1988 and 2005, three different years with strong symbolism representing three stages in Taiwan's political development. Under the totalitarian dictatorship of the Chiang family, vice president Yen Chia-kan (
When Chiang Ching-kuo passed away 17 years ago, Taiwan's party democracy had already begun to take shape, but the KMT still utilized martial law to control Taiwan. Although vice president Lee Teng-hui (
The proposal to bury the two Chiangs according to the State Funeral Law and mobilize all Taiwanese to pay their respects, is not set in stone. Taiwan's democracy has matured, the knowledge of the Taiwanese people has taken great strides forward, and there are differing opinions of the two Chiangs. If the government holds another state funeral for the two, it may lead to polarization and conflict between pro-Chiang and anti-Chiang groups. For a Taiwan that has been divided since the presidential election this March, this would unnecessarily intensify this division.
The Chinese custom of collecting the bones of the deceased and moving them into another tomb or grave after several years of interment remains a family ritual where no one outside the family is invited. The interment of the two former presidents is just a burial ceremony that has remained incomplete for 30 and 17 years, respectively. It should be a family ceremony.
The government's responsibility is just to exert its best to help complete the burial rather than to hold a second pompous state funeral, which might lead to domestic instability and international astonishment.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath