The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is Taiwan’s neighbor. Despite the PRC’s close economic ties with Taiwan, politically it regards Taiwan as its territory and has done everything it can do impede Taiwan’s international relations. It is reluctant to give up annexing Taiwan through military means.
However, Taiwan’s ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has never bothered to stage a protest. On the contrary, its pro-China stance is only getting stronger by the day. The KMT is even delighted by its ability to monopolize the relations between politicians and industry.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) recently led a group of politicians to China to conduct a party-to-party diplomatic activity. However, he failed to defend the dignity of Taiwan as a sovereign nation during this visit. Instead, he joined the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in reaffirming the historically nonexistent “1992 consensus,” and he even said that Taiwan and the PRC are both part of the same “one China,” ignoring Taiwanese public opinion and that Taiwan and China are two independent nations — neither holds jurisdiction over the other. His support for China’s absurd idea of eventual unification is disturbing.
After the KMT’s rout in last year’s nine-in-one elections, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who was then the KMT chairman, had to hastily resign his chairmanship. The KMT should painstakingly correct its mistakes, ardently lean toward Taiwanese mainstream public opinion and humbly listen to citizens’ voices.
However, the KMT does not resort to this approach, which would help it win back public support. Instead, it is using the KMT-CCP cross-strait forum to earn the approval of the CCP so that, with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) patronage, it can show off to Taiwanese and justify its monopoly on the benefits of cross-strait economic exchanges.
When high-ranking Chinese officials used abusive rhetoric such as “recognition of the 1992 consensus,” “opposition to Taiwanese independence” and “acknowledgment that Taiwan and China are both part of one China,” Chu did not promptly defend Taiwan’s national integrity, but feebly used the “one China” framework to define the “1992 consensus,” reminiscent of former vice president Lien Chan’s (連戰) display of weakness when he visited China in 2005.
In contrast, when Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) visited China in June last year, he showed a lot of courage by saying that Taiwanese independence is the consensus of the Taiwanese and by truthfully telling the Chinese how democracy is practiced in Taiwan. Surprisingly, with that, he won respect from the Chinese.
Chu failed to emulate him, and instead he played the role of someone surrendering and paying tribute for the whole world to see. No wonder global media called Chu the party leader who backs eventual unification.
Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese and is not under the jurisdiction of any other country. If the KMT desires to survive in Taiwan, it has to acknowledge this “Taiwanese consensus.”
The Taiwan Association of University Professors wants to inform the KMT that if it stays stubbornly aloof from reality and continues to sabotage Taiwan’s national integrity and sovereignty, it will be disdained by Taiwanese.
We strongly condemn Chu and the KMT that he leads for propagating the absurd view that Taiwan and China are both part of “one China,” which serves only to demonstrate once again that the KMT is a foreign colonial party.
Taiwan cannot survive if the KMT persists.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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
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
RSS