The Chiang family has decided to bury former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (
The question of whether the two Chiangs should be given a state funeral has, however, led to disputes domestically. Considering both international and domestic factors, although affirming the interment of the two in Taiwan as an act of identification with Taiwan, we believe that a family funeral, not a state funeral, is the appropriate ceremony.
Both Chiangs were given a state funeral attended by international guests after their deaths. The two were not, however, buried in Taiwan, because they were to be buried in Nanjing once China had been retaken. If, 30 years on, the two are buried in the military mausoleum on Wuchih Mountain and once again given a state funeral, it must once again be an international ceremony. But we only die once, and there is no international precedent where a second official funeral is held after the first. If the two now are given a second state funeral, the international community may have problems understanding how they have managed to die a second death, 30 and 17 years after their first. And those who participated in the funeral ceremony the first time will probably find it very strange to participate in a second funeral ceremony for the same person.
The three state funerals for the two Chiangs will have been held in 1975, 1988 and 2005, three different years with strong symbolism representing three stages in Taiwan's political development. Under the totalitarian dictatorship of the Chiang family, vice president Yen Chia-kan (
When Chiang Ching-kuo passed away 17 years ago, Taiwan's party democracy had already begun to take shape, but the KMT still utilized martial law to control Taiwan. Although vice president Lee Teng-hui (
The proposal to bury the two Chiangs according to the State Funeral Law and mobilize all Taiwanese to pay their respects, is not set in stone. Taiwan's democracy has matured, the knowledge of the Taiwanese people has taken great strides forward, and there are differing opinions of the two Chiangs. If the government holds another state funeral for the two, it may lead to polarization and conflict between pro-Chiang and anti-Chiang groups. For a Taiwan that has been divided since the presidential election this March, this would unnecessarily intensify this division.
The Chinese custom of collecting the bones of the deceased and moving them into another tomb or grave after several years of interment remains a family ritual where no one outside the family is invited. The interment of the two former presidents is just a burial ceremony that has remained incomplete for 30 and 17 years, respectively. It should be a family ceremony.
The government's responsibility is just to exert its best to help complete the burial rather than to hold a second pompous state funeral, which might lead to domestic instability and international astonishment.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS