Editorial: The KMT's new allies -- in Beijing

The flood of intimidating remarks from China designed to influence the presidential election has turned into a flood. Hardly a day goes by without bellicose remarks by authoritative Chinese, lightly sprinkled with milder comments -- such as those by Premier Zhu Rongji (朱鎔基) to the NPC -- which we are supposed to receive gratefully.

On Saturday China's President Jiang Zemin (江澤民) loudly proclaimed his willingness to employ "drastic measures." Sunday, Zhang Wannian (張萬年), the highest ranking general in China, weighed in with "we will steadfastly smash any political adventurer aimed at splitting the motherland." Yesterday, the PLA's house paper reiterated these remarks, adding a clarification that the "adventurer" in question is none other than the DPP's Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).

The comparison to 1996 is once again instructive. In the runup to that year's race, the Chinese also launched a campaign of intimidation, culminating in the now infamous missile tests. Then as now, the reasons for their discomfiture was the fact that Taiwan was electing its highest leader might just possibly increase the impression among Taiwanese -- and for that matter, the rest of the world -- that it was an independent country. Then as now, the focal point for China's anger was an action of Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) -- then it was his visit to the US, now it is his "state-to-state" announcement.

So far, so alike. But here the parallels end. For if we examine the reactions of the candidates -- the primary targets -- we see a curious phenomenon. In 1996, Lee announced that he had "18 scenarios" (十八套劇本) to deal with any Chinese threats and that there was thus no cause for alarm. Naturally, none of the KMT stalwarts criticized this position. He was, however, repeatedly and pointedly labelled as recklessly leading the country to war by the New Party and its affiliated candidates.

What a difference four years makes. Today's KMT line is strikingly opposite of Lee's. CEPD Chairman (and potential future Premier) Chiang Pin-kun (江炳坤) glibly remarked on Sunday that missiles would "rain down" on Taiwan if the voters were not careful. And now he has been backed up by Vice President Lien Chan (連戰), who stated that he believes that "confrontation and even disaster" awaits. This disgusting, overblown fear-mongering resembles that of the New Party circa 1996.

By contrast, the de facto standard-bearer of the New Party supporters, James Soong (宋楚瑜), has come out much more strongly, saying that the Taiwanese people are not afraid of threats such as these. A more skillful politician than most of the New Party, Soong is obviously moving to defuse the Achilles' Heel of softness on China.

So we have the peculiar spectacle that these two political groups have, at least in public, switched places on the vital issue of how to respond to China.

What will be the result? In 1996, China's bullying is thought to have been worth several points to Lee, putting him over the psychologically important 50 percent barrier. Such an effect would be much more significant now, when the election is so tight.

But who will be the beneficiary? This time, although the Chinese have continued to heap abuse on Lee, the barrage has been directed not at Lee's anointed successor Lien, but at Chen. It is clear where China thinks the successor's mantle belongs. And the KMT has shamefully responded not with resistance, but with encouragement, egging the Chinese on and amplifying the effect of their remarks on Taiwan's voters.