Where is the KMT heading?
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing on May 1, when Chu described the so-called “1992 consensus” by saying that both sides of the Taiwan Strait “belong to one China, but with each side ascribing different contents and definitions to the concept of ‘one China.” After returning from his trip, Chu strongly denied a report by The Associated Press that said that Chu “affirmed his party’s support for eventual unification with the mainland.”
Well, it is an issue of allegiance, so where is the KMT heading, Taiwan or China?
On May 7, both Chu and his predecessor as KMT chairman, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), accused former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) of being the initiator of the “1992 consensus” and “one China policy.”
Lee has long said that the “1992 consensus” does not exist and referred to interaction between Taiwan and China as special “state-to-state” relations.
Lee took power after former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), son of Chiang Kei-shek (蔣介石), passed away. Lee was elected chairman of the KMT and inherited Chiang Ching-kuo’s belief that Taiwan under the Republic of China (ROC) is an independent nation with sovereignty, but totally different from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 1949, Chiang Kei-shek was defeated by Mao Zedong (毛澤東) and fled from China. Chiang Ching-kuo, under the “three noes” policy — no contact, no negotiation and no compromise — refused to deal with the PRC. Lee’s policy was “no haste, be patient.”
Unfortunately, Lee’s successor as KMT chairman, former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), went to China to promote the “1992 consensus” and asked the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to join the KMT in ruling Taiwan.
Ma failed to achieve his dream of meeting Xi so we do not know how he openly he would have dealt with the CCP, while cross-strait relations as district-to-district relations.
Chu defends the “1992 consensus,” and his meeting with Xi in Beijing locked Taiwan into “one China.” It is no wonder that international media concluded that Chu affirmed Taiwan’s eventual unification with China.
The transition of power from Chiang Ching-kuo, Lee, Lien and Ma to Chu has been a U-turn in terms of the KMT’s policy, going from anti-communist to pro-communist. However, the KMT has never explained to its followers why such a change occurred. In the old days, if you had any connection with communist China you would be convicted of espionage and executed immediately or jailed for life. Now, even former premier and general Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村) has gone to China and sung the March of Volunteers (義勇軍進行曲).
It has been 70 years since US General Douglas MacArthur’s General Order No. 1 authorized Chiang Kai-shek’s military occupation. The KMT first came in 1945 as a victor of war over the Japanese, but in 1949, it became a political refugee escaped from China. After Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo died, most of their followers choose to stay in Taiwan, while some returned to China. It is about time for them to decide where they want to stay permanently. Taiwan or China.
In the past 70 years, the KMT’s leaders have taken advantage of Taiwan’s resources to benefit their party and individual interests. They always use the illusive label of the ROC to brainwash Taiwanese into believing how great the nation is, but when they meet with PRC leaders, the ROC automatically melts down and disappears. That is exactly what the “1992 consensus” is, a lie to Taiwanese. Times have changed, and whatever was said between Chu and Xi is already apparent to Taiwanese. The ROC is just a castle in the sky, an illusion rather than a real nation.
Whoever wins next year’s presidential election will be called the new Taiwanese president by international media, but, in Taiwan, he or she will be called the president of the ROC. Are Taiwanese going to elect the president of Taiwan or the president of China? Who will the elected president represent, Taiwanese or Chinese? This is exactly the dilemma Taiwanese are facing.
Why does a Chinese political party contest the presidential election in Taiwan? Does Taiwan own China, or does Taiwan belong to China? If Taiwanese want to be their own masters, they must insist on electing a Taiwanese president and reject the Chinese political party, unless it turns into the Taiwanese Nationalist party.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath