KMT remains delusional
Bill Mcgregor asks a very pertinent question (Letters, Dec. 31, page 8). To the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), “one China” means the Republic of China (ROC) and all the territory that is claimed to be within that polity as stated in the 1946 ROC Constitution. This Constitution does not explicitly mention Taiwan or any other geographical area. Instead, it makes a vague reference to territories previously considered to be part of the ROC before World War II — as detailed in the failed 1936 Constitution, rejected at the time by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Neither the original 1912 ROC Constitution nor the 1923 Constitution included Taiwan as a part of the ROC for the simple reason that the framers accepted at the time that Taiwan was Japanese territory — something they did not envisage would change in the near future.
This administration uses the so-called “1992 consensus” to maintain the myth that the ROC equates to China, a definition utilized to meet the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) demand that Taiwan is a part of China, whether ROC or PRC. It is essentially a political convenience that is critical to facilitating negotiations with Beijing. Indeed, shortly after coming to power, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took great care to turn back the clock and posit Taiwan as nothing more than a region or area of the ROC.
This KMT administration will not directly define their interpretation of the so-called “1992 consensus,” since to do so would highlight the fact that the Taiwanese government is still making an absurd claim upon the territories of the PRC, 32 years after the rest of the world firmly rejected such a claim.
Under this retrograde KMT administration, the ROC is an independent sovereign nation, not Taiwan. The word Taiwan, as a synonym for the nation’s title, is used by the KMT mostly before elections to beguile voters because they know that most people in Taiwan regard “Taiwan” and the “ROC” as mutually equivalent terms, both sharing the same sovereignty and de facto independence. The KMT charter and leadership do not share this perception. To them the ROC is literally their nation, including all of the PRC; and Taiwan is but a small part of it.
The celebration of the ROC centennial is evidence of their desperation to reignite the identification of Taiwanese as Chinese, whose nation is China, whatever the -interpretation. The key objective of the KMT remains the defense of their ROC project, regardless of Taiwanese democracy or the wishes of Taiwanese. To this end, the greatest threat to the KMT is not the PRC or CCP, but the vast majority of Taiwanese who, to the KMT, insultingly deign to believe that Taiwan is a nation separate from China as the rest of the world perceives it.
Bill will be waiting a long time if he wishes the KMT to explicitly state their interpretation of “one China” under the so-called“1992 consensus.” For the KMT, the definition of “one China” under the fictional “1992 consensus” is unimportant — what is critical is that it facilitates the retention of Taiwan as Chinese territory in any form and at any cost.
BEN GOREN
Taichung
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS