Arthur Waldron's letter arguing that Taiwan's democracy owes its existence to Chiang Kai-shek's (
Waldron first argues that Taiwan would not be independent of China were it not for Chiang's powerful China lobby connections, which enabled him to mobilize US opinion in his favor.
Taiwan, however, was saved not by US approval of Chiang but by the Korean War, which spurred the US to draw a line around the nation with its navy, preventing China from taking Taiwan, which it was almost certain to do in the summer of 1950.
At that time, the US had no intention of intervening.
The idea that "Chiang's presence saved Taiwan" is therefore a gross oversimplification. It is far truer to say that without the Korean War, there would have been no US protection for the nation and no US aid program to preserve the Taiwanese capitalists whose small and medium-sized firms would create the "Taiwan miracle" and lay the economic foundation for successful democratization.
Sadly, Waldron regurgitates a major Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) myth: that Chiang Ching-kuo (
Taiwan democratized in the 1980s thanks to three major factors. First, a dedicated independence and democracy movement was effective in pressuring the government in Taipei and in energizing support overseas.
This movement also conducted reprisal killings and attempted assassinations of KMT officials and supporters at home and abroad, serving notice to the regime that the nation could not be handed over to China without violent opposition.
It was the militant independence movement, not some putative steadfastness of Chiang Ching-kuo's as Waldron claims, that prevented him from serving Taiwan up to China on a platter.
A second major factor was the ineptitude of the KMT, which cracked down on the dissident movement with highly publicized trials that put the mention of democracy in every home and made heroes of its victims, all of which was exacerbated by its ordering the murder of writer Henry Liu (劉宜良) in the US and other boneheaded espionage moves, angering the regime's supporters in the US and galvanizing its opponents there.
Finally, the changing international scene -- particularly the fall of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 -- put fear into the government. Waldron ignores the fact that the Chiang Ching-kuo administration may have "lifted" martial law in 1987, but it kept dissidents in jail and passed a national security law that was martial law redux in all but name.
The real midwife of Taiwan's democracy was not the murderer and dictator Chiang Ching-kuo, but his successor Lee Teng-hui (
It is quite true that many ordinary Mainlanders sacrificed their lives to keep Taiwan free. They too, just as Taiwanese, were victims of the Leninist regimes that ran both China and Taiwan, and all honor to them.
Certainly they deserve a monument. But to argue that because a mass murderer's occupation of Taiwan was a necessary factor in Taiwan's democratic future he deserves a large monument in the capital, is akin to arguing that Hitler deserves a monument in Berlin for creating Germany's autobahns, or that Franco deserves a huge memorial in Madrid because of the Spanish economic miracle in the 1960s.
In every European state this principle is ironclad: mass murderers and dictators, regardless of their alleged contributions, do not get huge monuments in capitals and in many cases their political parties are banned.
In that realization we can see one of the most potent underlying reasons the KMT is struggling so hard to keep its dictator hero encysted in central Taipei.
The Democratic Progressive Party's moves are a necessary reclamation of the past no different from what has occurred elsewhere in post-colonial regimes. The icons of the Indian Raj now rust in a corner of the Bombay Zoo. Eastern Europe is slowly eradicating Soviet-era monuments. Post-colonial states in Africa renamed whole countries in claiming their freedom. National capitals in Europe do not feature monuments to the dead dictators who once ruled them.
Judged against this background, it is easy to see just how strange Taiwan is, and how wrong Waldron's arguments are.
Michael Turton
Tanzi, Taichung County
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under