The trained observer should have immediately recognized an eyesore of a dent in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) “no unification” — as with President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “three noes” policy of “no unification, no independence, and no use of force” from his 2008 inaugural address — armor late last month after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) selected Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) as its nominee for next year’s presidential election.
It should first be recalled that early last month, KMT officials went to great lengths to defame several Western academics and officials for having the temerity to submit an open letter to Ma questioning whether an investigation initiated by the Presidential Office was politically motivated.
Former Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) went so far as to denounce the Western academics for meddling in Taiwan’s internal affairs and “disrespect[ing] ... Taiwan’s rule of law.”
However, when the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Yang Yi (楊毅) later the same month warned the DPP of serious consequences if it pressed for independence, the Presidential Office said nothing. One can hardly imagine anything but smug satisfaction from the pan-blue camp with regards to the PRC’s comments.
When former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) visited Chongqing this week and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin (賈慶林) urged Taiwanese to “choose the right person” — obviously referring to Ma — next year, the Presidential Office again said nothing. Once again, one can picture corks popping in pan-blue enclaves.
It came as no surprise to followers of cross-strait relations and Taiwanese and Chinese politics that the KMT did not seek to shut the Chinese spokespeople up. The KMT clearly believes it benefits from Chinese support. After all, the KMT — like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — believes that Taiwan is an indisputable part of China.
However, the problem for the KMT is that it believes itself to be China (while still managing to accuse the DPP of being “ideological” and out of touch with reality).
The real dent in the KMT’s “no unification” armor, which should have been easy for the trained eye to see, was the cognitive dissonance that informed the KMT’s characterization of well-intentioned comments from Western academics as interference, but silent jubilation in the face of Chinese interference.
Of course, all of this can easily be explained if one believes that Taiwan and China are part of the same political construct. The KMT and the CCP have for nearly seven decades agreed that Taiwan is a part of China. By extension, if Taiwan and China are part of the same political construct, then Western comments regarding Taiwan’s internal political affairs amount to foreign interference, whereas Chinese comments are, by definition, domestic input.
However, it is at this juncture that the issue becomes more problematic because the KMT and CCP just cannot for the life of them agree how to define “China.”
The Ma administration has sworn that Taiwan — or at least the Republic of China (ROC) — is a sovereign nation. Indeed, Ma in the past often spoke about the ROC’s — indeed, even “Taiwan’s” — sovereign status.
The problem should be clear to all by now: Taiwan, according to the KMT, is a sovereign part of China, a sovereign political construct and according to the Presidential Office will not tolerate foreign interference in its domestic affairs.
However, the PRC is not a part of the ROC and the ROC is not a part of the PRC, according to the KMT. Despite that, PRC commentary on Taiwan’s internal affairs is seemingly acceptable, while Western commentary is not.
It is also clear where the KMT’s allegiances lay. One can bet that if Western criticism had been leveled at the DPP — though, in truth, the Western academics were merely making an inquiry and did not go so far as to criticize the Presidential Office — the office’s reaction would have been completely different.
Instead, we see a KMT more concerned with maintaining — nay, encouraging — support, denouncing criticism and growing ever closer to its once-sworn enemy.
The only way such an apparent contradictory response on the part of the KMT can be justified is if the ROC is not a sovereign political entity. So much for “no unification.”
Nathan Novak is a master’s program student at National Sun Yat-sen University’s Institute of China and Asia-Pacific Studies.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry