The poll released yesterday, and cited by Taipei City Councilor and legislative candidate Lin Chin-chang (
But the more interesting thing about the poll was what it might tell us about the topic of localization. In terms of which party "loves Taiwan," the DPP beat the KMT by a 2:1 ratio. Just as interesting, a very large number of respondents said they believed the reason the DPP was able to obtain power so soon after its creation was because of its Taiwan-centered consciousness.
Lin has taken the results of the poll to mean that people reject the idea of "one China," and he advises the KMT to drop its commitment to this ideal or else face catastrophe at the polls. But "one China" is a symptom of the KMT's malaise, not its cause. The real locus of the KMT's problems is in the leadership's refusal to face facts.
The election result in March should have been a wake-up call. In 2000 Lien Chan (
The last thing the KMT needs, if it is to become centrist and mainstream again, is a merger with the PFP. Yet this is exactly what Lien has been working on.
You might think that the election results since 1996 show the popularity of the "Lee Teng-hui line" and the likely success at the polls of whoever can assume the mantle of heir to the pragmatic pro-Taiwan centrism that was Lee's hallmark. Yet James Soong said that he would not merge with the KMT as long as it still retained what he called "the stink of Lee Teng-hui." We can only interpret this as ideology blinding common sense.
If the KMT wants to see power again, it has to become what Lee tried to make it (and let us note here that the centrist Lee, who kept stealing the DPP's popular policies in the 90s, was something different from the fulminating anti-China zealot he has latterly become).
Younger KMT members surely realize this. Lin is not the first among the younger generation in the party to talk of a radical makeover. Ever since the pan-blue ticket's election defeat, there has been talk in the party of adopting a more vigorous pro-Taiwan stance, dropping the "commitment" to unification and even changing the name to the Taiwan Nationalist Party.
But such voices are simply not heard, and the party is moving in exactly the opposite direction.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers