As a strong supporter of Taiwan's self-determination and democracy, I nevertheless feel that the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) campaign against Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) ignores an ironic but simple fact: namely, that had Chiang and the Nationalists not taken refuge in Taiwan, it is a near certainty that the island would now be a province of China. Of course one can discuss UN mandates, referenda, and so forth. All were talked about at the time. But the island then was desperately poor and little known to the outside world -- probably unrealistic goals.
Chiang arrived in Taiwan and brought with him international political clout -- in the form of the old "China Lobby" in Washington -- that the established population could not supply. Precisely because of Chiang's international political strength, many Americans wanted to get rid of him from the moment his plane touched down at Sungshan Airport in 1949 -- not in order to foster a Taiwanese democracy, but to remove an "obstacle" to relations with China. That sentiment only gained strength as time passed. Declassified papers clearly demonstrate that by 1971 Nixon and Kissinger were secretly determined to make Taiwan unity with China. In their planning they drew on work done within the US government long before. At the time, few people cared about Taiwan being Taiwan.
Chiang, however, was able to draw on his broad US connections to maintain a military alliance crucial to the island. His son was the last man who had the power to hand Taiwan over to China, no questions asked. But he did not respond to Deng Xiaoping's (
As for the Chinese who fled with Chiang, they deserve some credit too. Not many soldiers were killed in the Cold War over the Taiwan Strait, but I would venture to guess that of the dead, many were Mainlanders. I well recall flying to Kinmen in the early 1970s. Nearly all the soldiers on the small plane spoke with strong mainland accents. Such Mainlanders were the core of the conscripted army that, often with great bravery, protected the Taiwanese from the horrors of Communist rule -- even as it enforced martial law at home.
History is complicated and rarely is it morally unambiguous. Thus I believe that every scrap of evidence about the 228 Incident and the White Terror must be dug out of party and government archives, brought to light, and properly dealt with. But I also believe that the contribution made by Chiang and his government -- which was no less than to keep Taiwan separate from China at a time when, arguably, no other group could have done so -- must not be ignored. Maintaining the separation in turn made it possible for Taiwan eventually to become a free and democratic state and determine its own future. Chiang Kai-shek had a lot to do with that.
Had Chiang not fled to Taiwan with his army, no memorial hall to him would stand in what would be today the dreary capital of Taiwan -- Province of the People's Republic of China, known chiefly for its pineapple and timber exports -- nor would any democratically elected president of Taiwan exist, able to change the name of that memorial, or lock its doors.
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of
International Relations
University of Pennsylvania
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
RSS