Under Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule, the government habitually and unrealistically equated focusing on China with focusing on globalization, hiding behind the sacred “1992 consensus.” Now that it is in opposition, the KMT is accusing the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government of being a troublemaker for refusing to be held hostage by China and by a policy that allows Beijing to do as it pleases, and for pragmatically trying to put an end to Taiwan’s diplomatic problems.
However, following the KMT’s defeats in 2014’s nine-in-one elections and this year’s presidential and legislative elections, most Taiwanese are clearly opposed to the KMT. Not only is there no longer a market for the deceitful “1992 consensus,” but an attempt to label the DPP as a troublemaker has also failed.
Why should the situation be different in the international community?
‘TROUBLEMAKER’
During an interview with Voice of America on June 22 and also during a speech on Saturday last week, American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt unambiguously said that in 1992, then-Straits Exchange Foundation chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and then-Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits chairman Wang Daohan (汪道涵) did not mention a “1992 consensus” during their meeting. This is clearly a warning to the people clinging to the fabricated “1992 consensus.”
An article published in Newsweek Japan on June 7 by Project 2049 Institute research fellow Ian Easton said in no uncertain terms that the troublemaker in the Taiwan Strait is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), not President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Quite the slap in the face of the KMT, which is trying to stick that label on Tsai.
Furthermore, Panamanian and Paraguayan media have addressed Tsai as “the president of Taiwan” in their reports during her visit, and when European and US politicians talk about the nation, they talk about “Taiwan.”
When have they ever mentioned the detestable Republic of China (ROC) or “Chinese Taipei?”
SINCERITY
Instead, the KMT — which is on its last leg and whose politicians talk insincerely about being Taiwanese and loving Taiwan during elections in an attempt to win a few more votes — treats the word “Taiwan” as if it were toxic.
When Tsai signed a guest book in Panama on Sunday last week, writing “President of Taiwan (ROC),” the KMT legislative caucus criticized her of belittling the nation.
According to the KMT, they are not belittling Taiwan when they talk about “Chinese Taipei” and “Taipei economic and trade offices,” but the DPP is when it calls a spade a spade and says “Taiwan”?
What kind of skewed logic is that?
If it is anyone who does not fit in in Taiwan, it is those who have made the choice to live here and are unwilling to live in China and become proper, upright Chinese, but continue to sell out Taiwan or expect Taiwanese to become Chinese.
However, the message coming from Taiwanese public opinion and the nation’s international allies is loud and clear: Tsai is the president of Taiwan, the “1992 consensus” is a fabrication and it is the leader of China who is the troublemaker in the Taiwan Strait, not the leader of Taiwan.
How long will it be before the KMT understands this and stops dancing to China’s tune?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor at National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Perry Svensson
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS