The Legacy of Tiananmen for Chinese Politics

Ever since 1989, Chinese leaders have been haunted by the fear that their days in power are numbered. The regime was shaken to its roots by six weeks of student protests in more than 130 cities and the divisions within the Communist Party leadership over how to handle them. The regime remained standing only because the military followed Deng Xiaoping's order to use force to disperse the demonstrators.

Just months after the crackdown, the Berlin Wall was torn down, a popular uprising overthrew the Romanian communist dictatorship, and communist regimes in Eastern Europe were toppled in rapid succession. The Soviet Union itself, the strongest communist power the world had ever seen, collapsed two years later. China's leaders watched with horror and had every reason to believe they could be next.

Today, two decades after the "life-and-death turning point" of Tiananmen, Chinese Communist rule has survived, but its leaders remain anxious about the possibility of another revolutionary challenge. To foreigners, China appears like an emerging superpower, strong economically and influential internationally; but its Communist leaders feel much weaker as they struggle to stay on top of a society roiled by thirty years of market reform and opening to the world.

Although never publicly articulating it, the Chinese Communist Party has devised a formula for survival based on the lessons they drew from the Tiananmen experience. First, prevent large-scale protests. Second, avoid public leadership splits. And third, keep the military loyal to the Party.

The three rules are interconnected. If the leadership group remains cohesive despite the competition that inevitably arises in it, then the Party and the security police can stop the protests from spreading. Unless people receive some signal of "permission" from the top, protests are likely to fizzle out or be extinguished before they grow politically threatening. But if the divisions among the top leaders come into the open as they did in 1989, people will take to the streets with little fear of punishment. Then, if the military splits too, or refuses to use force to defend the Party leaders, the entire regime could collapse. For the past twenty years, with the spectre of another Tiananmen crisis haunting them, China's leaders have worked hard to shore up all three fronts -- social quiescence, elite unity, and military loyalty.

Social Quiescence

The fear of large-scale protests makes economic growth a political imperative for China's leaders. The economic boom and improvement of living standards discourage people from rocking the boat politically. The CCP calculates that the economy must grow at a certain annual rate (7 or 8 percent) to create enough jobs to prevent widespread unemployment and labor unrest.

Anxieties about unrest have spurred the central government to address problems that anger the public, such as taxes on farmers, environmental pollution, tainted food and medicine, and inadequate health care. But getting the local officials to implement central policies is a persistent dilemma for central leaders.

The possibility of gradually introducing direct elections from the bottom-up as Taiwan successfully did has been on the table for decades, but the CCP leadership has felt that its hold over society was too tenuous to risk losing control over the selection of officials, which is the linchpin of Party rule.

In the absence of elections, Beijing increasingly relies on the media and Internet to serve as watchdogs over local officials. Central officials have learned that when they suppress news of epidemics like SARS, tainted food and medicine like the melamine in baby formula, environmental disasters like the poisoning of rivers by chemical plants, it aggravates crises. The trend is to allow the media to report problems -- official mouthpieces like the Xinhua News Agency are beginning to publish exposes and reporting protests -- but to spin the coverage so the public is persuaded that the government is competently solving problems.

Worries about political unrest also cause China's leaders to do everything they can to impede organized collective action against the regime. Every organization must be licensed and its leadership approved by the political authorities.

To co-opt the groups who are most likely to oppose Party rule, and the individuals most likely to become the leaders of an opposition, the Communist Party has made a big push to recruit college students and private businesspeople as members. College students are the most rapidly growing group within the Party. In 1990 only 1.2 percent of college students were CCP members, but as of 2003, 8 percent of them were members, and the percentage has continued to rise.

Party leaders go all-out to prevent Internet activism from spilling over into the streets. Using ingenious filtering technologies, site managers who screen and censor postings, paid stooges who post pro-government views, and career incentives to encourage self-censorship, the Party maintains a surprising degree of control, but not air-tight control, over Internet content.

At the same time, China's leaders are hyper-responsive to media and online public opinion. CCP leaders are particularly sensitive to nationalist criticism. They are well aware that the previous two dynasties, the Qing and the Republican government, both fell to revolutions in which the discontents of various groups were fused together by the powerful emotional force of nationalism. Foreign policy related to Tibet and other issues that arouse popular nationalism is motivated in large part by political self-defense. When Chinese Netizens were infuriated by the March 2008 violent attacks by Tibetan protestors against Chinese shopkeepers in Lhasa and the feeble government response, the leaders reacted by vilifying the Dalai Lama and intensifying their campaign to isolate him internationally.

Whenever protests over domestic issues do break out, central leaders deflect blame away from themselves to local officials; buy off the demonstrators by satisfying their economic demands, and punish the organizers.

Elite Unity

The CCP leaders appear to have learned the lesson of Tiananmen. If they don't hang together, they could hang separately, as the Western saying goes. Still, each individual politician has moments of temptation, when an interest in gaining more power for himself might cause him to exploit a crisis situation and reach out beyond the inner circle to mobilize a mass following, as many Chinese officials believe that Zhao Ziyang attempted to do during the Tiananmen crisis (Zhao denies this charge in his recently published memoirs).

Changes in the mass media heighten the risk of the public being drawn into elite disagreements. To reduce this risk, the CCP bans all reporting of leadership competition or decision-making at the top, even though the Hong Kong media has provided lively and sometimes accurate analyses of Beijing politics for many years.

Beginning with Deng Xiaoping, CCP leaders introduced fixed terms of office, term limits, and mandatory retirement age to regularize leadership competition and prevent splits. When Jiang Zemin, having reached the age of seventy-seven, retired as CCP general secretary (2002) and president (2003), it was the first time that a leader of a large communist country had ever handed down power to a successor without putting up a fight of dying.

Today's leaders --President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao, and the seven other members of the Politburo Standing Committee -- constitute an oligarchy that strives to prevent divisions among themselves or at least to hide them from the public. The top leader is first among equals, reversing the decades of domination by the top leader. Judicious balancing of major institutional constituencies -- the party apparatus, government agencies, and representatives of the provinces -- in the Politburo and its Standing Committee is aimed at inhibiting any one group from dominating the others.

On the surface, relations within the CCP's inner circle appear impressively smooth even in the face of the tension created by China's current economic downturn and this year's important political anniversaries. But in a society undergoing explosive change, political outcomes are unpredictable because the political game is evolving too.

Military Loyalty

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been a key player in Chinese politics since before the founding of the People's Republic in 1949. During the Revolution, the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese Communist Party were practically merged. Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, and other CCP leaders served as commanders, and the top generals were members of the CCP Politburo.

When Deng Xiaoping led China, he was so confident of the loyalty of the PLA that he squeezed it financially in order to concentrate on the civilian economy. Official defense spending stayed almost flat during the 1980s at a time when investments in the domestic economy were dramatically increasing.

Today's leaders have not served in the military, and cannot count on its automatic allegience. Hu Jintao, like Jiang Zemin before him, lavishes resources on the PLA to make sure that he can count on it to defend him. Defense spending has risen in real terms and as a percentage of GNP since 1999. Official military spending has increased at double-digit rates up to the present.

Today, twenty years after the Tiananmen crisis, most Chinese citizens probably have forgotten all about it, or been kept ignorant of it because of the official silence imposed by the Chinese Communist Party. The memory of Tiananmen is felt most intensely by China's leaders who still worry that it could happen again.

 

Comments

[Sam Flocks]

Several years ago, i had dinner with the Party chairman for Shuzhou City (northwest of Shanghai). He explained that his position was very difficult. He equated it to "having awakened a dragon which is growing ever larger and harder to feed. If he stops feeding the dragon, it will consume him." He was referring to the economic growth and his people's expectations.
He did not believe he (his party control) would last more than one more decade.
See how that goes.

[oxi]

How about we not care about China right now and worry about what the federal government is doing here!

[Rule Of Law]

Seconded!!!

[wereeverywhere]

Why on Earth should we turn our backs (and minds) away from the Tiananmen protesters? It's like turning your back on the idea of freedom and resistance. I'm astounded by the celebration of ignorance by people who can't recognize what the legacy of those fighting against repression gave us. That's certainly not a wise approach to take by those fighting against American misdeeds.

[oxi]

I could care less what China is doing, I see a growing federal government over its citizens here in the U.S. That in itself should priority one, not what China did 20 years ago. Before you know it that situation could easily end up here.

Patriot Act, Homeland Security, HR 645, warrentless wiretapping, Cyber Security Act and I could go on here...

The Bill of Rights was created to protect us from the federal government and you cannot see that the federal government is attacking our rights and slowly taking them away?

Go ahead and worry about China 20 years ago, at this rate you will have few, if any rights left and when you rise up against the federal government guess what will happen?

Worry about what our government is doing before we should worry about others!

[IsaacKuo]

It's possible--and morally responsible--to do both. We can't wait for our own perfection before helping others.

It's often said that it's easier to criticize others than to criticize yourself. This is human nature. But shouldn't we use this to our advantage, instead of using it has a crude tool to shut people up?

Here in the west, we use adversarial multi-party principles in order to turn this aspect of human nature into an advantage. It's hard for a single party system to admit mistakes and make progress. It's easier when multiple adversarial parties are free to criticize each other.

The same principle can and SHOULD apply on a global level. We can look to each other and look out for each other.

[Chip W]

This is news from elsewhere in the world, which some are interested in.
If you're only interested in the U.S. why read an article about China.

[FairTalk]

Here is an interesting item, that better reflects what is actually happening in Chinese politics that the piece above. By all means, read it, avail yourselvs of the fruits of the free press.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/03/EDU91807CR.DTL

.

[ggsf]

Great link. Thanks!

[Rule Of Law]

Strange that as Hillary Clinton takes her turn at the microphones asking that China be a member in good standing in the community of man, we are waging wars, refusing to be held accountable for torture of prisoners, and spying on our own people. And that's just the short list.

China is certainly more oppressive than many other dictatorsh­ips--thoug­h the Saudi's treatment of women and people of differing faiths, the nut job in N. Korea, and the oppression of dissidents in Myanmar etc, all run close seconds. And how long has Egypt
been ruled by the same dictator?

But China--though on this anniversary we try to put a humanitarian spin on our outrage for press consumption--is our largest trading partner and holder of our debt. Rather than just railing at them in all our red white and blue hypocrisy, why do we not embargo them as we have Cuba, N. Korea and other (Iraq under Saddam) dictatorial regimes?

And why this sudden flurry of press releases, like this one, that point out all of China's failings without acknowledging our huge role in supporting their iron handed rule? I don't know how these decisions are made or how the mouthpieces are recruited to disseminate this pap, but I do know that after the appropriate amount of finger waving, it will be right back to business as usual.

[buttonz]

FairTalk, where are you getting your info? First of all, if US policy has done anything for Taiwan it is deterring an invasion; multiple times. Taiwan and China may be seeking a peaceful solution, as it is a lot cheaper than conflict in soooo many ways but China is far from giving up the idea of attacking Taiwan (the best of the military resources are devoted to such a plan). Furthermore, the the communist regime deliberately left the Nationalists to fight the Japanese ALONE so it could be worn down and beaten by the Communists, which actually happened.

The Chinese govt is a solid dictatorship who have hundreds of thousands of special police DEDICATED to guarantee that the Communist party stays in power. These aren't a combination of cops, army, intelligence or any of that; this is a force on its own that is larger than 95% of the world's armies.

Stop trying to distract the issue of accusing the US of outdated world perspectives of the Cold War and see the Chinese leaderships for what it really is; a dictatorship desperately clinging onto it's power.

[Henry]

buttonz,
I just happened to be attending a European university at the time of Tiananmen and had three PRC classmates. They were outraged, one even wrote an article for a French paper, but at his own peril. The tallest (and most pragmatic) of the three told me that he was glad not to be there (Peijing) due to the fact that the militarist control of the protestors was as bad as, if not worse, than the control of the central government.

[FairTalk]

Where am I getting my information? Surely not from the MSM.

I was living in China at the time, and, unlike those who had a hand in inciting the violence, and unlike those who stood to benifit from mob rule, I have no reason to lie.

The US gov was there, and did a thourough investigation, and deemd there to have been no massacre.

Instead of attacking me for revealing this, why don't you do some research yourself?

Oh, I think I know why. China bashing is so much fun.

[FairTalk]

I must point out that your thesis, that all the actions, motivations, of the Chinese Gov, is based on keeping the CCP in pwer, is completely invalid. You go on to support your invalid thesis by claiming that outside pressure is what is keeping the CCP in power.

Here is a thought for you. If what you claim is true, all you have to do is to stop pressuring China, the Chinese Gov, and it will fall like a house of cards.

But, you see, your thesis is wrong, and the Chinese gov cares about the Chinese people in a way that the Tiananmen student protesters never did.

Chai Ling calling for the over throw of the Chinese Gov and calling for blood shed so they can get attention and calling the Chinese people worthless. Remember, now, the vast majority of students returned to theis college classes after Martial Law was declared, and they took a vote to end the protests. Chai Ling, Wu'er Kaixi, and others did not agree to follow the democratic vote of the student movement, nor did they respect the Law, instead they tried to provoke Chine into spilling their blood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8fGgkSNkP0

[argyle]

Fear, repression and a great deal of manufacturing manpower keeps the CCP in power.

[BuddhaStar]

The Chinese Internet users are savvy enough to know how to get another the Great Firewall. It is made of hollow bricks; at its worst it's a minor annoyance. Its main purpose seems to be to provide Western journalists with a Bogeyman to beat up China. I like these China phobic journalists. It is FUD. The Chinese are very different then us Westerners. /s Americans must live in fear. Fear the Chinese and Russians. Al-qaeda is out to get you, and so are the Socialist. Don't forget about the Iranians and North Koreans. It is crazy. The real threat is the USA government where civil liberties and human rights are being eroded on a steady basis. The government controls it's people using jingoism and fear.

[oxi]

I agree, sites like this and the western media hype about other countries issues and how they govern yet they ignore the biggest threat to the U.S. and that is our own government!

The Bill of Rights was created to protect us from the federal government and look what the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, warrentless wiretapping, among a few has done to that!

China funds our government, so why slap the hand that provides?

[FairTalk]

China is taking security measures to prevent electronic attempts to incite demonstrations or riots in China during this week. The demonstrations and protests in Tiananmen, and other cities in China were provoked, planed and incited using Faxes, and email. I know, because I was there.

In 1989, China was innocent, and had every reason to expect fair treatment from western powers. After all, the uS had just recognized them, they were seated in the UN, and they were progressing on "opening up" at the time of the '89 riots.

In 1988, China permitted the first Democratic parties, and during the runup to elections, candidates could be seen campaigning openly on the streets. Deng had started his open market policies, and people could buy and sell in their own "stalls" instead of only havinmg the state markets.

The real threat is that the MSM continues to lie about Tiananmen, exercizing their free press at the expense of the People's Right to Know. There was no massacre in Tiananmen, and it was not a student run protest.

Birth of a Massacre Myth
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20080721gc.html

[argyle]

Yes, our government does resort to trying to control public opinion through the media. They do this because they aren't allowed to massacre us in the streets.

[jitsusoji]

Besides, this government has already had it's share of massacres - Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, etc.

[Rule Of Law]

I'm laughing at the--I'm speechless­...

You are so accurate, but the phrasing has a macabre humor--painful, but spot on--So far.

With the Patriot and Home Grown Terrorists Acts (Jane Harman D-CA) the gov has all the laws they need to shoot us down or imprison us in the Halliburton camps built all across the country under Bush.The corporate press is the mouthpiece of the banks who own the government.

As a veteran of the 60's I believe, now more than ever, that there are forces in this country who would like nothing more than the excuse to begin executing us in public. That the age of a New Feudalism is upon us led by the Wall Street Banks and that the 1% yearns for a return to the days of complete and crushing control of all of us who are not a part of their Class. To me it is like looking backwards through a telescope to pre-revolution France when the Royalty had unlimited power--and used and enjoyed it!

[IsaacKuo]

These "hollow bricks" are backed up by the real threat of being arrested as a dissident simply for discussing Tiananmen.

Do you live in the fear that if you talk about the wrong thing, then you'll be arrested?

[Henry]

If you were to step back a little and ponder the diplomatic visit to Communist China by Pres Richard Nixon and his Secretary Henry Kissinger you'd realize the development of a lot of things since that time. One of the first things was the disrecognition of Taiwan as the Chinese member to the UN. (ouch). And then you'd be curious about the events in Vietnam and the PRC agreement with our boys re that issue. Matters of state, influence, and control travel a different meaning in the Orient than in the US. For an American everything is absolute, for them everything is relative.

[buttonz]

You are completely wrong. Way to make everything look different to prove some sill point. Kissenger's detente on China was committed on the basis of 'that everything was gray and that there is not black and white and no absolutes.­' Nice Try.

[Henry]

buttonz,
I post this for your benefit:
Lê Ðức Thọ and Henry Kissinger were jointly awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in negotiating the Paris Peace Accords.[1­] However, Thọ declined to accept the award, stating that there was still no peace in his country. [2](wiki)

If I recall, it was Henry in superman outfit on magazine covers in America for his peace with honor. His counterpart, however refused. Can you see this difference? Has Vietnam brought war crimes tribunals against us? Would we them if it were the other way around?

[BuddhaStar]

Do you remember the Kent State Massacre on May 4, 1970. 4 protesters were killed and 16 people injured...­shot by National Guard troops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

[wereeverywhere]

Even these lame attempts at deflection away from the heroes who stood up to totalitarians are in their twisted way a tribute. Twenty years ago martial law and martial logic smashed to pieces a democracy movement, but it disclosed a brutal system that is scared of change and losing its grip on power. The CC(sic)P can say they bring stability for sweatshops as they plunder their own people and environment, but they can't claim to be on the right side of history. Tiananmen shattered that myth.

[BuddhaStar]

Perhaps someone should tell China that Communism failed.

[BuddhaStar]

Not long ago China was a Republic. China is the way it is today because the actions of the imperialist. Because of the Opium War with England and the invasion by the Japanese, the republic was weak. It was easy for Mao Zedong and the communist to overthrow the government. With the economic changes made in the 1980s by Deng Xiaoping, China is now an authoritarian capitalist government. This type of government has many advantages over a liberal democracy like the USA. China is now the most successful capitalist country in the world and is the model for a new global trend of governments.

[IsaacKuo]

Of course we remember the Kent State Massacre, because we live in a free society where it's okay to discuss the past.

The Chinese government is still afraid of allowing the truth to be spoken. Someday, that will hopefully change.

[Rule Of Law]

Isaac, you seem sincere that America represents a shining beacon of hope, justice and peace in the world. Perhaps, compared to the PRC we are, seemingly, freer. Have you ever thought that maybe our oppressors are just a little more sophisticated and clever about how they control us? We have the appearance of free speech/Press, but how free are we when a president can set up "Free Speech Zones" to pen protesters like cattle, while he hand picks the attendees at his talks, right down to scripting the questions to be asked? And the Press is owned by 6 international companies that print exactly what they are told to. Jefferson and Tom Paine are rolling over tight now! Did anyone in government question this? No.

We've the Illusion of freedom and insist on believing it despite two stolen presidential election--Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004. Has Congress demanded investigations into this? No. Just as they allow us to be spied upon, called terrorists if we protest, and renditioned to a torture prison all under the socalled Patriot Act.

We're have jobs (fewer and fewer) homes (going, going gone) and wages--based on a dollar worth 14 cents of what is was 75 years ago. Even when we vote for "Change" we get more bailouts of the banks and NO help for the home owners. Sure, we don't have army in the streets or an informer network--yet--but this is no time to be complacent.

[Steve Real]

When are the Chinese people are going to get an apology
for the murder and killings of over 3000 Beijing residents?
When will these brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers of dead be respected?
The Communist Party of Cina is ashamed of their murders
and they don't want the truth June 4, 1989 of Tiananmen Square
to recognized or even thought of.
Cowards!
The Chinese Communists are cowards plain and simple.

[ModernTimes1]

Yawn.
Few people in China care about this obsessive preoccupation of Western limo-liberals.
Most of Chinese are too busy to enjoy their economic freedom and applaud the great achievements of Chinese communists in the last twenty years.
They're smart enough to follow Marx word who said there's no freedom without economic freedom. Whereas, in U.S. political freedom is combined with economic oppression.

[wereeverywhere]

Hands down you get the best crypto parody of the year award. It's a near genius imitation of the CC(sic)P party line with just a hint of subtle distortion thrown in. I'm in awe.

[ggsf]

3000 is just about the most ridiculous number I’ve heard. I lived in Beijing during the whole Tiananmen incident. Yes, people were killed, but nowhere near 3000, and there were casualties on both sides. I’ve seen footages of soldiers burned to death or were killed by other means.

[FairTalk]

You are correct. The western media loves to lie about China. Its called China bashing, and is based on their latent racism. I was also there, and China says the death toll was 241. The protesters were not peaceful, and China did not have riot gear as they do today.

The news media shoyld apologise for spreading these lies for the past 20 years.

[Solex]

Hear, hear!

[Dalpine]

http://noworldsystem.com/category/internet-blackout/

[ModernTimes1]

Chinese people is an extremely pragmatic people. Chinese had enough of revolutions and uprisings.
Most find economic freedom, prosperity, national strength and open borders achieved by the CCP leadership preferable to the chaos unleashed by the student revolt.

[buttonz]

Many do but most don't. About 70% of the Chinese population live in poverty. And I've heard the same statistic recited by my Bei Da and Fudan professors, so don't start spewing that this is some Western lie.

[ModernTimes1]

Where did I state that this was a"Western lie?" Try reading the post.
I see why Tsinghua was just an unattainable dream :-)

[IsaacKuo]

If what you say is simply the truth, then the Chinese government would be proudly allowing full and open discussion of the Tiananmen incident. It would be in the textbooks and there would be many web sites touting the righteous government suppression of the evil violent student revolt.

Why isn't the Chinese government proudly celebrating the Tiananmen incident as an example of the government protecting the Chinese people from violent student revolutionaries?

Clearly, there's a hole in your argument.

[LMPE]

One of my college friends spent summer 2002 in Shanghai teaching schoolchildren English. Here's what he learned about China:

They teach the children that the Dalai Lama is on vacation.

Maps show Taiwan as part of the People's Republic.

The Tiananmen protesters were getting violent, and so the army had no choice but to use force (the government says this).

Due to the absolute totalitarian elements of the country, there is no crime (at least not at the most basic level).

***

IMO, Taiwan is a non-issue. The Nationalists fled there after the 1949 revolution and enslaved the native population. If anything the mainland's government probably views the island with suspicion.

One more thing: if in fact the mainland's government collapses, then what? The people would probably be happy to have democracy, but would they have any idea what to do? Also, this would no doubt unnerve the other remaining communist countries: Cuba always speaks glowingly of China (reading Cuba's national newspaper, you'd never suspect that China's government would harm a fly; I wonder how Cuban media covered the Tiananmen uprising).

[Henry]

Taiwan is a potentially explosive issue. I have (red) friends in China who tell me that Taiwan is and has always been a part of China. It, Taiwan, will be taken and will be a part of the PRC. Big problem for us as we have treaties to protect Taiwan. What will our president do when Taiwan is taken by force? (could be ugly) I think the uniting will take place diplomatically but do not kid yourself, this has potential to be ugly. I mean... think of what Obama would do compared to what McCain would do.

[ggsf]

Dalai Lama on vacation? What planet are you and your friend on? I lived and studied in China for years, and never once heard that the Chinese taught their children Dalai Lama was on vacation. The Chinese all know that he fled China after a failed rebellion. Your "friend" either made it up or is too inept with the Chinese language that he couldn't distinguish the word "vacation" and "exile."

As for Taiwan, it is part of China. Enough the U.S. recognize this as its official policy.

[Steve Real]

Taiwan will never, ever be part of China.
ever.
So dream on

[Jakealoper]

"IMO, Taiwan is a non-issue. The Nationalists fled there after the 1949 revolution and enslaved the native population. If anything the mainland's government probably views the island with suspicion"
Such BS, they lorded over the indigenous people of the island but you sound like a Communist stooge when you used a loaded word like "enslaved". No crime either, just like no homosexuals in Iran?

[FairTalk]

The nationalist Chinese, fully supported by the US, and led by the green gangster "Cash My Check," who left his men behind in Nanjing to be massacred b the Japanese, arrived in Taiwan, and immediately massacred the locals who opposed his invasion.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1969-Boston-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Chiang-Kaishek-ordered-228-Massacre-to-quell-uprising-against-Chinese-rule-of-Taiwan

Taiwan was ruled by Martial Law until 1986.

However, this massacre was used by the US to claim that the "Taiwanese" rebelled to Chinese Rule, using it as an excuse to seperate Taiwan from China.

Taiwan and China, are today, seeking a peaceful resolution to the delima the US policies in China left them.

[IsaacKuo]

The best thing the USA did for the Taiwanese people was to break off official ties with Chiang Kaishek's brutal regime. This opened up the possibility of transition into a less brutal government.

Through a combination of good luck and good people, Taiwan peacefully transitioned into a free and open democracy. One factor in this transition was openness about the 228 massacre.

Someday, the Chinese government will stop suppressing discussion of Tiananmen. Hopefully, China will have a peaceful transition to a free and open society as well.

In the meantime, the freedom which the Taiwanese people have shed blood and tears for should not go to waste.

[oxi]

I dunno but when I read a legal map of the world, Kosovo is a province of Serbia as UN Resolution 1244 states...

Also it is not Macedonia, it is FYROM, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but then again who follows protocol in the west anymore?