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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS