Feb. 28 must be one of the days marked on President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) calendar as days on which he must speak carefully and, perhaps, apologize as president and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman, for all the wrong reasons — such as the 228 Massacre being “people rebelling against misgovernment.”
It is easy to imagine Ma breathing a sigh of relief when March comes around, since he can then ignore calls for the government and his party to seek the truth behind the ruthless massacre and to apologize for the right reasons for at least another year.
Not so fast.
March 8 — which was also International Women’s Day — marked the anniversary of the beginning of the “March Crackdown,” which has been described as the second, although most important, part of the massacre.
On March 8, 1947, the Nationalist Army’s 21st Division arrived in Keelung and began shelling the port and shooting at residents even before landing. During the next three months, Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) troops scoured the island and wiped out an entire generation of Taiwanese elites.
For many victims and their families, it is a date they can never forget, and so it should be for the government and the KMT.
However, the Ma administration could not care less about the facts, instead pretending that the crackdown never took place.
Marches involving tens of thousands people on that day — Saturday this year — in cities around Taiwan have given March 8 another meaning: marking opposition to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City.
For the third year since Japan’s 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident, Taiwanese are asking the government to not only suspend the construction of the Gongliao plant, but phase out nuclear power altogether, citing the potential of a nuclear disaster in earthquake-prone Taiwan and the incompetence of Taiwan Power Co (Taipower).
The Ma administration has said that while nuclear safety is crucial, the concerns of the nuclear skeptics have never been an issue and Taiwan must have atomic energy.
A different group took to the streets on Sunday, one day before the annual Tibetan Uprising Day, to commemorate Tibetan resistance against a Chinese invasion in 1959 and to raise awareness that Chinese suppression of Tibetan culture and religion remains ongoing.
Supporters of the democratic movements in Tibet and East Turkestan, now known as the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in China, have always had a strong presence in Taiwan because they feel that the three places share similar histories of Chinese oppression and exist under the same threat from the Chinese Communist Party.
That is why these supporters hoped that Taiwan, as a beacon of democracy in Asia, would advocate human rights and the right of self-determination more than any other country in the world.
However, the Ma administration has never shown support for the movements in Tibet and East Turkestan. Nor has it addressed the issues with Beijing during the past six years of “significantly relaxed” cross-strait relations — despite more than 100 Tibetans having committed suicide by setting themselves on fire over the past two years.
A well-known Chinese poem written during the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 described the authoritarian Chinese regime like this: “Cover your eyes so you think you would not see. Cover your ears so you think you would not hear.”
Unfortunately, the verses also describe the Ma administration, which assumes that the will of Taiwanese will eventually run out and falter if the government keeps ignoring it.
Hopefully, Taiwanese will prove the Ma administration wrong.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS