To understand Taiwanese politics, it is necessary to comprehend the political earthquake set off by the 228 Incident. US president Richard Nixon said in 1972 that he did not know what the Taiwan independence movement was. Today, the US administration says it does not support measures by Taiwan to clearly distinguish itself from China. One reason for this is that they do not understand the history behind the scars left on the Taiwanese people by the 228 Incident.
To deal with this situation, the Brookings Institution organized a symposium last Thursday to discuss the political implications of 228 in the hopes of facilitating the understanding in US academic circles of "Taiwan consciousness" and demands for normalizing Taiwan's national status.
The 228 Incident marked the beginning of Taiwan's independence movement and it represents a crucial watershed in Taiwanese politics. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was responsible for mass slaughter, and the US, which stood by and did nothing, must accept moral responsibility.
The KMT has shifted blame for the incident onto Chen Yi (陳儀), then executive administrator of Taiwan, and attempted to brush over 228 by saying that it was the result of a simple misunderstanding caused by the language barrier. It has no intention of acknowledging its responsibility.
The crackdown on tobacco smuggling was the spark that set off the incident, but the primary reason was the KMT's corruption, impotence and political and economic monopolies which had led to growing public outcry.
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (
Even as his troops were slaughtering Taiwanese, Chiang voiced support for Chen's actions at a meeting of the KMT's Central Committee. When he finally ordered the execution of Chen a few years later, it was not because of 228, but because Chen was accused of allying himself with the Chinese Communist Party.
After the 228 Incident, Taiwanese intellectuals put four requests for assistance to the US consulate in Taipei. They asked that the US stop Chiang from deploying troops in Taiwan; that the consulate help reveal the truth of the incident to the world; that the US urge the UN to place Taiwan under UN trusteeship and help sever the political and economic relations between Taiwan and China until the realization of Taiwan independence; and that the US pressure Chiang to investigate and resolve the issue.
These intellectuals blamed the US for handing Taiwan to China. They hoped the US would help Taiwan seek UN intervention. The US consul, however, refused to intervene in "a conflict between two Chinese ethnic groups." The then US ambassador to China merely relayed a request to Chiang to dispatch officials to Taiwan to investigate the incident. The ambassador also submitted the US' report on the incident.
Former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Richard Bush believes the US should at least have stopped Chiang from sending troops to Taiwan and put pressure on Chen to negotiate with Taiwanese representatives. The US' decision to remain neutral created an even greater tragedy. It thus cannot avoid moral responsibility for the 228 Incident.
Sixty years later, the regime responsible for slaughtering Taiwanese has been eliminated by voters, and Taiwanese still hope that the US will recognize and protect this nascent democracy. The US missed an earlier opportunity by ignoring justice. It should do good now by giving Taiwanese belated justice.
Shen Chieh is a journalist based in the US.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS