Print

Mail

wiki links

Letters: Jettison the stolen goods

At the opening of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) National Congress, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) said: "Let us discuss a formal end to the state of hostility between the two sides. We are ready to conduct exchanges, dialogue, consultations and negotiations with any political party in Taiwan as long as it recognizes that both sides of the strait belong to one China."

The problem with Beijing's new PR blitz is that it is stuck in the realm of Beijing's old "united front" effort for "unification."

These words nonetheless succinctly defined Beijing's misrepresentation of problems between Taiwan and China.

"A formal end to the state of hostility between the two sides" isn't really necessary given that Taiwan and Taiwanese haven't contemplated any hostile acts against China. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Taiwanese investment in China so far can attest to this fact.

If there is any "state of hostility," it's unilateral, as evinced by nearly 1,000 missiles targeting Taiwan and a myriad of threats not the least of which is the enactment of the "Anti-secession" Law. As soon as Beijing formally removes them, the hostility can "end."

Historically, "the two sides" to which Hu referred mean the CCP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Millions died in clashes between the two for the control of China before the KMT was defeated and fled to Taiwan.

The hostility formally ended in 2005 when former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) signed an accord which was later enshrined in the KMT charter with Hu, the CCP general secretary.

Nowadays, the CCP and the KMT embrace each other with no want of exchanges, dialogue and consultations and negotiations in their concerted effort to undermine Taiwanese society for the ultimate goal of "unifying" Taiwan with China.

The "hostility" is therefore nothing but a fabrication by Beijing to justify its belligerence.

Under the prerequisite that the party "recognizes that both sides of the strait belong to one China," "any political party in Taiwan" referenced in Hu's statement could only mean the KMT. If Hu were referring to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the condition would make his proposal dead on arrival as a statement to the contrary is etched in the DPP charter.

While the prerequisite implies that Beijing has no interest talking to anyone who isn't ready to relinquish Taiwan to China, to call a statement like this a peace overture is ludicrous.

Although "the two sides" might not have bilateral animosity, Beijing does have an axe to grind regarding Taiwan's use of the Republic of China (ROC) name.

The original ROC died when the People's Republic of China (PRC) was created in 1949. The present ROC is a shell created by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and forced on the Taiwanese people soon after his arrival in Taiwan. Chiang at the time wielded this re-minted ROC as "legitimacy" for the KMT's brutal rule lest the KMT be regarded as just a vanquished armed band from China.

It should be further noted that after the PRC replaced the ROC in China, Chiang's use of the word "China" in his ROC was an act of identity theft. For geopolitical consideration during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the West entertained Chiang's folly for more than two decades before China gained a UN seat in 1971. The US ended Chiang's masquerade in 1979 when it severed formal relations with the ROC.

Even though China has a legitimate grievance with the ROC shell any attempt to expand the complaint into a claim on Taiwan and the Taiwanese people, whose biggest "crime" might be their meek harboring of a looted identity, would still be more than preposterous. The fact remains that Beijing vehemently objects to Taiwan's discard of the shell lest "justification" for China's taking of Taiwan be diminished.

That could only give Taiwanese more reasons not to keep the ROC any longer than necessary. Shedding the moniker deserves to be looked upon as an urgent national security matter that can't afford procrastination.

Although aggression needs no excuse, getting rid of even the flimsiest subterfuge would expose Beijing as the pure aggressor it is, the poisoned olive branch currently on display notwithstanding.

Huang Jei-hsuan

California
This story has been viewed 1056 times.