When former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
In the space of four days, Ma has reversed this position, writing yesterday in the United Daily News that: "Tragic ethnic conflicts such as the 228 Incident are likely to happen again if people allow politicians to continue dividing ethnic groups."
This new stance, which misrepresents the events and political structures of 1947, will probably leave readers rather confused. So, let the facts talk:
After the arrival of the KMT in late 1945, officials and newspaper editorials said Taiwanese had been infected by the Japanese -- on levels of language, culture and identity that can only be sensibly labeled as "ethnic" -- and promised to cure them of their "Japaneseness." This led to stupid policies, such as breaking up families with Japanese members and banning the use in publications of the Japanese language -- Taiwan's lingua franca at the time -- thus severing lines of communication between those of different ethnic groups with limited literacy.
So, ethnicity indeed had a critical role in 228.
All this history may be too complex for Ma to understand. And to this day, Ma may be unaware that his mentor and former employer, president Chiang Ching-kuo (
Yet Ma is the most moderate and conciliatory KMT leader on this issue. He is the KMT man civilized people turn to in the hope of having a dialogue. He can be abused to his face by his foes and he will maintain decorum. Unusual for a KMT leader, he manages to retain a degree of credibility and dignity.
The same cannot be said for most of his senior party colleagues, where there is scant interest in the 228 Incident. Put simply, there is no genuine contrition in the KMT over its criminal past.
The word "responsibility" and apologies may be bandied about, but the KMT has come up pitifully short on what really matters: action.
Action to make amends is the product of true contrition, yet within the KMT, and on its think tank perimeters and across sympathetic academic networks, hardliners consistently act in opposition to the process of accountability. And they still have the upper hand: So-called party moderates rarely speak out with conviction on these matters.
Events that triggered the 228 Incident -- government theft of private property, abuse of international aid, carpetbagging, the killing and mistreatment of ordinary people -- were later reflected in the manner in which top KMT officials made fortunes from the enmeshing of party and state. It is this legacy that the KMT refuses to denounce, let alone seek to correct in a manner respectful of all Taiwanese people.
Instead, we are treated to the KMT and its radical allies saying that accountability for 228 and the White Terror threatens to foment ethnic tension -- a claim that is unspeakably arrogant and malicious.
The real issue is this: Until the KMT can explain why it defends and nurtures extremist views of history and rationalizes theft of public assets, the pan-green-camp voter will look upon it as ill-willed.
Today's KMT leaders did not commit the crimes of 1947 or those thereafter, but they refuse to let go of the booty that the violence helped put in their hands.
Until this changes, the anniversary of the 228 Incident will continue to divide those who want to move forward by facing the past and those who insult the memory of the murdered by lecturing the bereaved on ethnic harmony.
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