Tuesday was the 40th anniversary of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) "May 16 Notice," which is generally agreed to have marked the official start of the Cultural Revolution in China.
The CCP recognizes the 10-year-long Cultural Revolution as "a disastrous decade" which not only brought the economy to the verge of collapse but which also caused the death and persecution of countless thousands; the actual number is still not known. Research has indicated that millions of people, perhaps as many as 20 million, lost their lives as a consequence of the movement. Even more suffered persecution, an estimated 100 million to 200 million people out of a population which at the time stood at only 800 million to 900 million. The CCP brought an end to discussion on the Cultural Revolution in 1981, and it is said that the party tried to distance itself from it. From that point on they did not permit any more discussion or reflection on the subject, and it remains taboo to this day. The CCP even barred Chinese citizens from taking part in any discussion on the matter abroad.
But why distance itself from it, and forbid commemoration of the event? Fifty years ago, following the death of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, during the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev released a confidential report denouncing Stalin's violent abuses and immoral conduct. After this, Mao began to worry that people would give him a similar epitaph, and his May 16 notice clearly stated that "people like Khrushchev are nestling among us."
After years of observation, Mao finally decided that the No. 2 man in the CCP, Liu Shaoqi (
The CCP's distancing itself from the Cultural Revolution fell short of a genuine denial, and because of this, de facto Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (登小平) and other members of the old guard who had been toppled during the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution were at first unable to regain their power. Nevertheless, it was impossible for the CCP to actually deny the Cultural Revolution, for to have done so would have been to cast Mao as the chief protagonist of the disaster. Mao is the spiritual symbol of the CCP itself, and to have pulled him down would have divested the CCP of the legitimacy to govern China.
This is what led the party to propagate the nonsense that Mao had been exploited by Lin Biao and Jiang Qing. Mao may have made mistakes, but there is no denying that he represented the collective intellect. Deng was to exploit the CCP's refusal to deny the Cultural Revolution to settle old scores of his own, designating three types of undesirable personality and unprincipled characters, and branding Lin Biao and Jiang Qing as members of a "counter-revolutionary group."
The Cultural Revolution originated in the despotic structure of the CCP, and Mao's approach was, at base, a philosophy of violent revolution. Despite the reforms and the opening up of the party, the CCP is still as grounded in avarice and violence as ever, with no real likelihood of change. Deng saw the 1989 student movement as another attempt to wrest power from him, and so he gave the order for the massacre. In the ensuing religious and moral vacuum, Falun Gong arose, only to be banned by former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民), who saw them as a threat to the CCP's rule. It was just a replay of the Cultural Revolution.
At the moment the CCP is trying to create two camps in Taiwan, conscripting the pro-China element within Taiwan, represented as the "unification headquarters," to come out in opposition against the localization camp, which is being recast as the "independence headquarters." The CCP is trying to win over the hearts of the Taiwanese, but once it has used the pro-unification element to defeat the pro-independence elements, it will side with the pro-independence groups against the pro-unification groups. It is a classic "pitting the barbarians against each other" strategy, and they intend to use it to bring Taiwan to its knees.
Paul Lin is a New York-based political commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS