What is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) vision for Taiwan? An answer to this question is warranted after the KMT agreed to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) under the “one China” framework.
The cocktail of policies over the past five years further accentuates the need for an answer because they seem to be no more than tactical initiatives. The vision that these initiatives are serving is not stated and thus left open to interpretation. Uncertainty about Taiwan’s future is not what Taiwan needs as China’s international influence is growing rapidly.
The KMT’s policies and the “one China” framework must lead the international community to conclude that the KMT government is consciously or unconsciously directing Taiwan toward a Hong Kong model or even toward China. If this is the official policy, then KMT should be honest and state it clearly.
The KMT’s Taiwan policies are embedded in policies such as the nonexistent “1992 consensus” and the policy of no independence, no unification and no use of force. The problem with these policies are that they are empty phrases stating nothing about the KMT’s vision for Taiwan. Moreover, policies based on negations about what you will not do will never lead a country forward.
The lack of a vision for Taiwan has generated a friendly relationship with China, which has been recognized worldwide. However, if increased international space for Taiwan was a desired goal of these friendly relationships, the KMT has failed miserably.
Taiwan’s observer status is subject to annual approval from China and the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement between Taiwan and China has not yet been sent to the WTO. Consequently, both achievements have lowered Taiwan’s international status.
The fundamental problem is that the KMT’s policies appear to mimic the policies of Hong Kong’s government. Hong Kong is fast becoming more Chinese and less uniquely Hong Kong. The consequence is that Taiwanese business has become an ally in the cross-strait policies and Taiwanese media has become increasingly influenced by Chinese agendas. Thus, China can influence Taiwan in many areas and its influence is growing.
However, Hong Kong’s development offers concrete lessons on how to resist China’s influence, and Taiwan’s politicians and civil society are already learning from Hong Kong. Civil society in Taiwan can play a significant role in resisting China’s policies. This requires that the otherwise inspiring demonstrations like the ones against media mergers and support for the Huaguang Community (華光社區) are elevated to questions about cross-strait policies and the future of Taiwan.
On the political level, politicians have to play a fine balance between resistance and cooperation with China. This requires bold leadership from the opposition parties and courage to safeguard the right for Taiwanese to determine their own future.
It is time for the Taiwanese to demand that their KMT government make a clear policy statement on its vision for Taiwan. The KMT is likely to fail on this.
It is interesting to observe that recently disclosed US files from March 1949 show that the CIA believed that the KMT “could not be relied upon to prevent the communists from gaining control of the island.”
Today, the files set the current cross-strait development and the KMT’s lack of a vision for Taiwan into historical perspective.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS