With President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) recent directive to declassify all government documents relating to the 228 Massacre, Taiwan has passed another milestone in its pursuit of truth about its past. Linked to this is the continued removal of statues of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who clearly bears responsibility for the massacre.
However, Taiwan’s coming to terms with this part of its history and Chiang’s role in it is not the final step. It raises other deeper issues that remain unanswered.
Numerous books have been written on the history of Taiwan, as well as on Chiang and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), but a different book still demands to be written. That book is a thorough, comprehensive and honest history of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), along with its failed struggles with democracy, identity and power.
Such a book would need to cover the KMT from its inception to its current fading position and all its missteps and betrayals along the way, including its loss of China.
It would be a crucial work not only on the KMT’s role in Taiwan’s struggle for democracy, but would also have to trace how and where the party — which was allegedly built on the pursuit of democracy — lost its focus and soul.
The KMT dates its founding to right after the 1911 Xinhai Revolution when Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) and Sung Chiao-jen (宋教仁) united the Chinese Revolutionary Alliance (Tongmenghui, 同盟會) and other revolutionary groups to form the KMT based on a belief in government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Sun became the first president of China, but quickly ceded that role to Yuan Shikai (袁世凱), and so began the KMT’s ill-fated journey.
Because of its length and scope, this history of the KMT has the makings of an epic, or — more accurately — of an epic tragedy. It would cover more than a century of numerous wars for control and leadership, and would end with the KMT as a diaspora in exile.
“I sing of arms and a man,” wrote Virgil at the beginning of The Aeneid, his epic on the founding of Rome. From its revolutionary inception, the KMT — through contention with Yuan, the warlords, the rise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the Northern Expedition, the Japanese invasion, the Chinese Civil War and more — has seen its share of battles, victories and defeats.
However, what makes it a tragedy is the KMT’s continuing identity crisis as it struggles to balance conflicting paradigms of power, money and democracy and its belief in “one China.” It wants to create the image and role of being modern China’s founding hero.
It wants to promote democracy, but it also wants dynastic power and profit. These paradigms do not mesh.
The KMT contributed to the founding of modern China, but never achieved its desired status as central hero, just as it contributed to the creation of Taiwan’s democracy, but was never the hero of that struggle.
Instead, it acquired the roles of obstructionist and loser, capable of “swelling a progress” and setting the stage for democracy, yet remaining a loser, never quite able to achieve its desired conclusion.
In this, the KMT has remained “full of high sentences, but a bit obtuse.” That is its tragedy.
All epics have an epic question. Here, the question would be: “Why did the KMT never learn from its past? Why did it miss the mark and continue to fail?”
For Aeneas and his Trojans, their destiny was the founding of Rome. Once they left Troy, they never looked back.
However, for the KMT, its epic is not that of China, nor is it that of Taiwan. Instead its epic remains a tragedy of wandering souls striving to be part of a lost dream, paying a price, but never the right one.
What would be the title of this tragedy? Paradise Lost might be fitting if referring to China, but that title has already been taken.
A different title could be Gone With the Wind, which would be an appropriate reflection of its role on Taiwan. Each treats the KMT’s loss and inability to learn from the past, but each still does not cover everything.
Epic tragedies also have a tragic flaw. The flaw of the KMT is believing that its founding purpose justifies its lust for power and its desire for heroic leadership. Its hardliners still seek a way to triumphantly return and fit into a China built by their former enemy, the CCP.
The KMT’s lost founding identity was based on Sun’s Three Principles — government of the people, by the people and for the people — yet in its ruling style and desire for power, the KMT could only embrace the “government of the people” part.
Profit and power became part of its perceived destiny. Why?
In the KMT’s failed destiny, a number of “what ifs” exist where fate seemed to intervene: What if the Japanese had never invaded China in the 1930s when the KMT was beginning to unify the country and consolidate its power? What if the Xian Incident never succeeded and Chiang was able to put down the “Communist bandits”? What if, when the UN votes were there in the 1960s, Chiang had decided to accept the Italian proposition for “two Chinas,” just like there were two Germanys and two Koreas?
However, in each case, the “what ifs” never happened and fate carried the day.
To face up to the tragic flaw of its past desire for dynastic power and profit remains the KMT’s real challenge. It is a flaw that has caused so many to sacrifice themselves for so few.
Just as honesty with the 228 Massacre had to be forced upon the KMT, it must engage in additional soul-searching, but it is almost impossible to say how. Stolen state assets hold current members back; to be transparent in this would mean their forfeiture.
Some party members recognize this albatross, but they are unable to convince the others. Without money, KMT leaders will have to join the common democratic herd, and how can an epic journey end like that? This is not the hero’s paradigm, nor does it fit the paradigm of “one China.”
The years under former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) were the KMT’s final chance and swan song. With control of the presidency and Legislative Yuan, they had one last opportunity, but still could not face the issue of asset transparency.
Even now, the party’s best lack all conviction for their required sacrifice, and the ceremony of innocence is drowned. How can one claim to be for the truth, especially if it means giving ill-gotten gains back to Taiwanese? How can a foreign party do this and achieve its goals?
The complete story of the KMT remains a story that needs to be told, but who can tell it to its fullest? Who can be both sympathetic to the lost cause and brutally honest with how that loss happened? It remains an epic tragedy in search of an author.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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