On Sunday, a group of academics published a report entitled The 228 Incident: A Report on Responsibility that claims former president Chiang Kai-shek (
The report, financed by the government-funded 228 Memorial Foundation and headed by Academia Historica President Chang Yen-hsien (
After it came to power in 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government declared Feb. 28 a national holiday to commemorate the 1947 incident. The tragedy had been the subject of a massive cover-up by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, and the misinformation disseminated as a result has led to distrust and tensions between various ethnic groups.
The report's clarification of the incident, in which many of Taiwan's intellectual elite were massacred, is necessary to put a stop to self-serving politicians or political parties exploiting misconceptions about Taiwan's past to exacerbate social divisions, instead of allowing people to learn something from this tragic event.
Not least among the lessons to be learned is that of forgiveness. But while knowing the truth may allow us to forgive, we must never forget, and those with blood on their hands should not be venerated as heroes.
In 1947, Chiang, who was orchestrating the war against the Chinese Communists from Nanjing, sent a division of the Nationalist Army to Taiwan in response to the 228 Incident. The troops landed in early March and proceeded to slaughter any dissidents, or those who had been framed as such, islandwide in a wave of cruel suppression that continued until after Chiang himself arrived in 1949.
Chiang then introduced martial law. This helped him to consolidate the power of the KMT through the White Terror era, to which both Taiwanese and Mainlanders who had followed the Nationalist Army over from China fell victim. The prison on Green Island (
Whether or not the contents of this report are accepted by Chiang's descendants, they will serve as evidence in a public debate on the 228 Incident. This may lead to a more comprehensive understanding of what actually happened. For example, the true number of victims remains a mystery.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the report's findings or not, the public can learn an important lesson -- namely that even governments cannot escape the judgement of history, and while crimes can be hidden for a time, most will eventually be revealed.
More importantly, Taiwanese should be able to use this incident as a point of reference in debate over the future of cross-strait relations. History tells us that every foreign government that has come to Taiwan -- be it the Qing dynasty, the Japanese, or the Chiangs -- has brought bloodshed in its wake. On the basis of this understanding, it is fair to ask whether, under the unified rule of a communist China, Taiwan has any guarantee of dignity or a secure future.
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
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
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS