In a radical move to outflank the government of Taiwan, CCP leaders sounded out the possibility of inviting figures from outside Taiwan's governing party for discussions on the unification of China and Taiwan. April 2005?
Try April 1985, during the declining years of the Chiang dynasty's one-party state. Apparently, the suggestion came from the widow of People's Republic of China premier Chou En-lai (周恩來) in her capacity as chairperson of the People's Political Consultative Committee. (It also shows what a poor understanding the Beijing authorities had of Taiwan's politics.)
Naturally, such a move was dismissed by the KMT as a "New Trick, Same Game." In its editorial of April 14, 1985, the Free China Journal described Mrs. Chou as "seeking to tempt non-party people into the discussions. A new ploy in the Communist's united front tricks."
The government newspaper (which, interestingly, until six months earlier had been published by one James Soong in his role as director-general of the Government Information Office) then continued, "The government of the Republic of China and the KMT have refused to negotiate because the Communists' record of keeping promises made in negotiations is a disaster. For the Taiwanese, there is nothing to gain, but everything to lose. Tibet is one very good example and Hong Kong is on the same path."
Incidentally, how significant a phrase: "For the people now living in Taiwan" in terms of the people that the KMT felt it represented. And what a good choice of examples: while the rest of the world has been saddened and shocked by subsequent developments in Tibet and Hong Kong, it would seem that Soong and his on-again-off-again buddy, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), feel that the PRC has changed its spots in the last two decades and is now ready to keep its word.
What promises Lien and Soong are making in Beijing, the people of Taiwan can only wonder and worry.
Mark Caltonhill
Taipei County
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS