1949: Catastrophe or Blessing for Taiwan?

1949: Catastrophe or Blessing for Taiwan?
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
October 1, 2009

Since 1949 the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been under divided rule. According to the rhetoric of Taiwan independence, 1949, the year the Republic of China government retreated to Taiwan, was the beginning of a catastrophe. But from an historical perspective, the larger meaning of 1949 was that Taiwan did not become part of the Peoples Republic of China.
If the Republic of China government had not moved to Taiwan, Taiwan would have inevitably become a province of the People's Republic of China. If so, Taiwan's landlords would have been purged. Taiwan's intellectuals would have been subjected to rightist rectification. Taiwan's streets and alleys would have been filled with backyard steel furnaces. Peoples' communes would have served "da guo fan" meals filled with sand and rocks. Students would have taken to the streets wearing the red armbands of Red Guards. People stigmatized as the "Five Black Categories" would have been paraded through the streets as demons. 1949 ensured that Taiwan did not go down this road, but instead went down a different road than the Chinese mainland for the next 60 years.

1949 has long been a taboo subject on Taiwan. For example, it was obviously a major rout. Yet it is described as a "transfer." Because of these taboos, politicians each use their own biased framework to interpret the events of 1949. The general public has never given much thought to the meaning of 1949, but 60 years later, some people are determined to restore the truth about 1949. They include Chi Pang-yuan, in her book "Ju Liu He" and Lung Ying-tai, in her book "Da Jiang Da Hai." Some scholars have attempted to initiate an academic debate. They are asking whether 1949 a catastrophe or blessing for Taiwan.

If one wishes to be glib and split the difference, one can it was a blessing plagued by catastrophes, or a catastrophe rich with blessings. But viewed from the perspective of history, 1949 ensured that Taiwan would not become part of the PRC. It was not merely a blessing for the Taiwan region, it was a blessing for China as a whole. Without 1949, the Chinese-speaking world would not have a directly-elected president. It would not have a free and democratic Republic of China, capable of successfully prosecuting a former president for crimes against society. The continued survival of the Republic of China on Taiwan since 1949 spared Taiwan three decades of catastrophe, beginning with the Three Antis, Five Antis Campaigns and ending with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. It made possible today's environment of freedom and democracy.

A few years before 1949, there was talk of "KMT/CCP Divided Rule Across the [Yangzi] River." Had that come to pass, Taiwan would have been the rear echelon. It would not have been spared the consequences of bloody KMT vs. CCP warfare. The KMT retreated to Taiwan and severed all connections with the Communist regime. That is why Taiwan was able to hold out until today. Today this side of the Strait is holding presidential elections, and the other side is undergoing reform and liberalization. During these 60 years Taiwan also experienced catastrophes, including the 2/28 Incident and the White Terror. But seen in proportion, within the framework of history, 1949 was overwhelmingly a blessing for Taiwan. Without 1949, today's Taiwan would never have emerged.

To this day, Taiwan remains mired in debates over whether 1949 was a catastrophe or a blessing. Those who insist it was nothing but a catastrophe have their own terminology. They refer to Japan's surrender as the "Cessation of Conflict." They refer to Mainlanders as "Chinese pigs," who "invaded Taiwan" in 1949 and brought with them an "alien regime." They refer to the "Republic of China" as a "government in exile," one which mired Taiwan in a civil war from which it cannot escape. Those who consider 1949 a blessing on the other hand, remind us that 1949 spared Taiwan from the Red Terror. The Cold War era anti-Communist defense of Taiwan depended upon the Republic of China's military and diplomatic struggles against the Chinese Communist regime. This struggle included the 8/23 Artillery Battle. The post-Cold War lifting of martial law by the Republic of China implemented full democracy and made possible calls for "peaceful development" with Beijing.

Those who consider 1949 a blessing are not prettifying it. They have learned painful lessons from defeat. The overarching framework of "divided government on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait" deserves affirmation, for providing an historic opporunity for Taiwan. On the other hand, those who insist that 1949 was an unmitigated catastrophe, compel themselves to repudiate the past 60 years in toto. To them, even the Republic of China belongs to the Kuomintang, not to "Taiwanese." They make it impossible for themselves to acknowledge the true meaning of the past 60 years on Taiwan.

As a result of 1949, Taiwan experienced much suffering. But as a result of 1949, Taiwan also received many blessings. 1949 was a catastrophe and blessing for China as a whole as well. Over the past 60 years, the Mainland has emerged, through rivers of blood, from Communist dogma. Taiwan has achieved freedom and democracy, becoming an example for Beijing to emulate. The two sides have emerged from a struggle to the death, and are now walking side by side toward "peaceful development." If not for 1949, we would not have experienced the past 60 years. We would not be where we are today.

一九四九年：台灣的苦難或恩典？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.01 04:46 am

兩岸自一九四九年分裂分治已六十周年。就台獨的論述言，一九四九年是台灣災難的開端，因中華民國中央政府在這一年撤遷來台；但從大歷史觀而論，一九四九年更重要的意義是：這一年決定了台灣沒有成為中華人民共和國的一部分。

如果中華民國中央政府當年未撤遷來台，則台灣成為中華人民共和國的一個行省，是必然的結局。倘係如此，台灣今天也早已經歷了地主掃地出門，知識分子反右整風，街巷裡的土高爐燒得火紅，人民公社裡的大鍋飯摻沙摻石，年輕學生以戴上紅臂章的紅衛兵為榮，四處皆見被戴上紙紮高帽子遊街的黑五類及牛鬼蛇神……。一九四九年，決定了台灣沒有走上這一條路，而走上六十年來與中國大陸不同的另一條路。

一九四九年在台灣一向是一個社會禁忌話題。例如，明明是大敗逃，卻說是「轉進」；由於此類禁忌，不同的政治人物各自以偏頗的理念來解釋及操作一九四九，一般人民亦從未對一九四九進行深思。然而，在六十年後的今日，漸有較多的有心人設法還原一九四九，如齊邦媛的《巨流河》與龍應台的《大江大海》，並有一些學者嘗試啟動一項學術討論；大意是：一九四九是台灣的苦難或恩典？

如果想要媚俗地調和雙方歧見，不妨說：這是帶著苦難的恩典，或帶著恩典的苦難。然而，若從大歷史的宏觀角度來看，一九四九年決定了台灣沒有成為中華人民共和國的一部分，這非但是台灣的恩典，也是中國的恩典。沒有一九四九年，就沒有今天華人世界唯一能直選總統、並對犯罪的總統判刑的自由民主國家中華民國。持平而論，中華民國在一九四九年賴台灣始能延續，而台灣則因中華民國而免於「三十年浩劫」（自三反五反至文化大革命），並能臻至今日自由民主的境地。

一九四九前幾年，曾有「國共隔江分治」的議論；但若隔江而治，台灣就成了大後方，仍然不能免於國共面對面的肉搏。正因完全撤到台灣，與共產政權完全切割，台灣始有可能將情勢撐持到今日「這邊直選總統／那邊改革開放」的境地。當然，台灣在這六十年來的過程中，亦曾歷經苦難（二二八、白色恐怖），但若就大比例的歷史觀而論，一九四九對台灣應當主要是一個恩典。沒有一九四九年，就沒有今日的台灣。

一直到今天，台灣其實仍然陷於「一九四九年是苦難或恩典」的分歧之中。持「災難說」者認為：「終戰」後外省人（現在成了中國豬）侵入台灣，一九四九帶來了「外來政權」，「中華民國」是「流亡政府」，使台灣深陷國共內戰而不能跳脫；持「恩典論」者則認為，一九四九使台灣未陷赤禍，冷戰時代反共保台，靠「中華民國」與中共的政權進行軍事及外交鬥爭（八二三砲戰），後冷戰時代的中華民國則正好解嚴而實現了完全的民主政治，又能與中共政權爭取到「和平發展」的立足點。

「恩典論」並未美化一九四九，卻願從失敗與痛苦中，對「兩岸分裂分治」這個大架構為台灣生機創造的歷史大機遇給予肯定。相對而言，持「災難說」者欲否定一九四九的轉折，就很容易自陷於「必須完全否定這六十年」的邏輯陷阱；對「災難說」而言，既然連「中華民國」都是「國民黨的」，而不是「台灣人的」，將如何建立這六十年對台灣的正面意義？

本文的觀點是：台灣因一九四九而承受相當的苦難，但台灣也因一九四九而獲得了重大恩典。不僅如此，一九四九年對中國也是苦難與恩典的化合物。六十年來，大陸從山河血淚中走出了共產主義教條，台灣則實現了自由民主，並成為北京新思維的範本，兩岸亦由你死我活走向「和平發展」；如果沒有一九四九，沒有這六十年，就不會有今天。