As a strong supporter of Taiwan's self-determination and democracy, I nevertheless feel that the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) campaign against Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) ignores an ironic but simple fact: namely, that had Chiang and the Nationalists not taken refuge in Taiwan, it is a near certainty that the island would now be a province of China. Of course one can discuss UN mandates, referenda, and so forth. All were talked about at the time. But the island then was desperately poor and little known to the outside world -- probably unrealistic goals.
Chiang arrived in Taiwan and brought with him international political clout -- in the form of the old "China Lobby" in Washington -- that the established population could not supply. Precisely because of Chiang's international political strength, many Americans wanted to get rid of him from the moment his plane touched down at Sungshan Airport in 1949 -- not in order to foster a Taiwanese democracy, but to remove an "obstacle" to relations with China. That sentiment only gained strength as time passed. Declassified papers clearly demonstrate that by 1971 Nixon and Kissinger were secretly determined to make Taiwan unity with China. In their planning they drew on work done within the US government long before. At the time, few people cared about Taiwan being Taiwan.
Chiang, however, was able to draw on his broad US connections to maintain a military alliance crucial to the island. His son was the last man who had the power to hand Taiwan over to China, no questions asked. But he did not respond to Deng Xiaoping's (
As for the Chinese who fled with Chiang, they deserve some credit too. Not many soldiers were killed in the Cold War over the Taiwan Strait, but I would venture to guess that of the dead, many were Mainlanders. I well recall flying to Kinmen in the early 1970s. Nearly all the soldiers on the small plane spoke with strong mainland accents. Such Mainlanders were the core of the conscripted army that, often with great bravery, protected the Taiwanese from the horrors of Communist rule -- even as it enforced martial law at home.
History is complicated and rarely is it morally unambiguous. Thus I believe that every scrap of evidence about the 228 Incident and the White Terror must be dug out of party and government archives, brought to light, and properly dealt with. But I also believe that the contribution made by Chiang and his government -- which was no less than to keep Taiwan separate from China at a time when, arguably, no other group could have done so -- must not be ignored. Maintaining the separation in turn made it possible for Taiwan eventually to become a free and democratic state and determine its own future. Chiang Kai-shek had a lot to do with that.
Had Chiang not fled to Taiwan with his army, no memorial hall to him would stand in what would be today the dreary capital of Taiwan -- Province of the People's Republic of China, known chiefly for its pineapple and timber exports -- nor would any democratically elected president of Taiwan exist, able to change the name of that memorial, or lock its doors.
Arthur Waldron
Lauder Professor of
International Relations
University of Pennsylvania
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS