On Sunday, a group of academics published a report entitled The 228 Incident: A Report on Responsibility that claims former president Chiang Kai-shek (
The report, financed by the government-funded 228 Memorial Foundation and headed by Academia Historica President Chang Yen-hsien (
After it came to power in 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government declared Feb. 28 a national holiday to commemorate the 1947 incident. The tragedy had been the subject of a massive cover-up by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime, and the misinformation disseminated as a result has led to distrust and tensions between various ethnic groups.
The report's clarification of the incident, in which many of Taiwan's intellectual elite were massacred, is necessary to put a stop to self-serving politicians or political parties exploiting misconceptions about Taiwan's past to exacerbate social divisions, instead of allowing people to learn something from this tragic event.
Not least among the lessons to be learned is that of forgiveness. But while knowing the truth may allow us to forgive, we must never forget, and those with blood on their hands should not be venerated as heroes.
In 1947, Chiang, who was orchestrating the war against the Chinese Communists from Nanjing, sent a division of the Nationalist Army to Taiwan in response to the 228 Incident. The troops landed in early March and proceeded to slaughter any dissidents, or those who had been framed as such, islandwide in a wave of cruel suppression that continued until after Chiang himself arrived in 1949.
Chiang then introduced martial law. This helped him to consolidate the power of the KMT through the White Terror era, to which both Taiwanese and Mainlanders who had followed the Nationalist Army over from China fell victim. The prison on Green Island (
Whether or not the contents of this report are accepted by Chiang's descendants, they will serve as evidence in a public debate on the 228 Incident. This may lead to a more comprehensive understanding of what actually happened. For example, the true number of victims remains a mystery.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the report's findings or not, the public can learn an important lesson -- namely that even governments cannot escape the judgement of history, and while crimes can be hidden for a time, most will eventually be revealed.
More importantly, Taiwanese should be able to use this incident as a point of reference in debate over the future of cross-strait relations. History tells us that every foreign government that has come to Taiwan -- be it the Qing dynasty, the Japanese, or the Chiangs -- has brought bloodshed in its wake. On the basis of this understanding, it is fair to ask whether, under the unified rule of a communist China, Taiwan has any guarantee of dignity or a secure future.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS