Two years ago this week, I was at Taipei's 228 Museum preparing my radio program for Radio Taiwan International (formerly the Central Broadcasting System of China). The museum building had originally housed the Taiwan Broadcasting Company that had been set up by the Japanese, but was taken over by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) when Taiwan was "handed over" to Chiang Kai-shek's (
As I looked at the displays, I thought: "How ironic that I am now working for what once had been Chiang Kai-shek's Ministry of Truth," which years later was now trying to be a voice of the people.
As I walked through the museum, the stories I had read about "the incident" came to life through the photographs, drawings and eyewitness accounts of the scuffle that grew into a massacre. I was haunted by the voices, now preserved in digital audio, of those involved in the conflict:
First there were the excited, desperate voices of young Taiwanese. On the day the massacre began, they took over radio stations to send their message of distress to the world. They told the world of the drama unfolding on the streets of Taipei -- and called on their countrymen around Taiwan to protest the violence.
Then came the stern, authoritarian voices of the military rulers. In firm, measured tones, they announced the government's response to the crisis and warned people to stay home and behave.
As I looked and listened, I heard another voice in my head: the voice of a friend who clearly considered herself to be more Chinese than Taiwanese.
A few days earlier, she had told me: "Taiwanese don't want democracy. They want to be protected -- to be rich and to be protected."
At the time, all I could say was: "Protected from whom?"
The KMT's answer has always been that it was protecting Taiwan from "communist insurgents" from "the Mainland."
Indeed, "protecting Taiwan from the communists" was, from the beginning, Chiang's excuse for the 1947 massacre that by government estimates resulted in between 18,000 and 28,000 people killed during the weeks and months that followed the protests and riots on Feb. 28.
Chiang's son and heir, Chiang Ching-kuo (
And it was the explanation I always heard from KMT supporters every time the subject of Chiang Kai-shek came up in conversation: Chiang was protecting Taiwan. This was always followed by the argument that: "You do not understand Chinese affairs because you are not Chinese."
This non-explanation was the same one used by KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
So perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised when I read a recent news story about Chiang Ching-kuo's son, John Chiang (
John Chiang has again lost his libel lawsuit against former Democratic Progressive Party chairman Yu Shyi-kun. John Chiang had filed the lawsuit after Yu said that Chiang Kai-shek was the "culprit" behind the 228 Incident.
The paper that published the story correctly noted that Chiang Kai-shek had "fled to Taiwan after losing a civil war to Mao Zedong's [
But the pro-KMT paper couldn't leave it there. It had to add that Chiang Kai-shek "is remembered by some as the man who laid the foundation for the island's economic prosperity and safeguarded it from Chinese invasion."
Well, no doubt he is remembered that way by John Chiang, Lien Chan (
But to anyone who bothers to learn about Taiwanese history, three things are abundantly clear:
The first is that it was the Japanese who -- in their 50-year occupation of Taiwan -- developed Taiwan's economy and civil society to a level unimagined in China.
The second is that the only things Chiang Kai-shek safeguarded Taiwan from was the prosperity delivered by the Japanese and the democracy dreamed of by Sun Yat-sen (
And finally, there is only one thing the people of Taiwan -- whether they call themselves "Taiwanese" or "Chinese" or "Aboriginal" -- ever needed to be protected from: Chiang Kai-shek and the KMT's reign of terror.
Stephen Nelson
Toronto, Canada
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