To understand Taiwanese politics, it is necessary to comprehend the political earthquake set off by the 228 Incident. US president Richard Nixon said in 1972 that he did not know what the Taiwan independence movement was. Today, the US administration says it does not support measures by Taiwan to clearly distinguish itself from China. One reason for this is that they do not understand the history behind the scars left on the Taiwanese people by the 228 Incident.
To deal with this situation, the Brookings Institution organized a symposium last Thursday to discuss the political implications of 228 in the hopes of facilitating the understanding in US academic circles of "Taiwan consciousness" and demands for normalizing Taiwan's national status.
The 228 Incident marked the beginning of Taiwan's independence movement and it represents a crucial watershed in Taiwanese politics. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was responsible for mass slaughter, and the US, which stood by and did nothing, must accept moral responsibility.
The KMT has shifted blame for the incident onto Chen Yi (陳儀), then executive administrator of Taiwan, and attempted to brush over 228 by saying that it was the result of a simple misunderstanding caused by the language barrier. It has no intention of acknowledging its responsibility.
The crackdown on tobacco smuggling was the spark that set off the incident, but the primary reason was the KMT's corruption, impotence and political and economic monopolies which had led to growing public outcry.
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (
Even as his troops were slaughtering Taiwanese, Chiang voiced support for Chen's actions at a meeting of the KMT's Central Committee. When he finally ordered the execution of Chen a few years later, it was not because of 228, but because Chen was accused of allying himself with the Chinese Communist Party.
After the 228 Incident, Taiwanese intellectuals put four requests for assistance to the US consulate in Taipei. They asked that the US stop Chiang from deploying troops in Taiwan; that the consulate help reveal the truth of the incident to the world; that the US urge the UN to place Taiwan under UN trusteeship and help sever the political and economic relations between Taiwan and China until the realization of Taiwan independence; and that the US pressure Chiang to investigate and resolve the issue.
These intellectuals blamed the US for handing Taiwan to China. They hoped the US would help Taiwan seek UN intervention. The US consul, however, refused to intervene in "a conflict between two Chinese ethnic groups." The then US ambassador to China merely relayed a request to Chiang to dispatch officials to Taiwan to investigate the incident. The ambassador also submitted the US' report on the incident.
Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Richard Bush believes the US should at least have stopped Chiang from sending troops to Taiwan and put pressure on Chen to negotiate with Taiwanese representatives. The US' decision to remain neutral created an even greater tragedy. It thus cannot avoid moral responsibility for the 228 Incident.
Sixty years later, the regime responsible for slaughtering Taiwanese has been eliminated by voters, and Taiwanese still hope that the US will recognize and protect this nascent democracy. The US missed an earlier opportunity by ignoring justice. It should do good now by giving Taiwanese belated justice.
Shen Chieh is a journalist based in the US.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS