Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) is due to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) today.
On Wednesday last week, a spokesperson for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) said the meeting would “consolidate” the so-called “1992 consensus” and the common political foundation between the two sides. As for the ongoing internal debate within the KMT over whether Hung should use the formula “one China, different interpretations” or “one China, same interpretation” at the meeting, the TAO issued a low-key response, saying that the core implication of the “1992 consensus” is that “both sides belong to one China.”
The implied meaning of the phrase “both sides belong to one China” is actually no different from Hung’s formula: “one China, same interpretation,” which has already sparked intense debate within her party. Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the party’s local factions have been trying to persuade Hung to use the phrase “‘1992 consensus” and “one China, different interpretations.” However, Hung has repeatedly refused, and when pressed on the issue, said that the spirit of the “1992 consensus” is “peaceful unification.”
Hung is the archetypal pro-unification KMT politician. Although independent members of her party feel a degree of hostility toward her, in reality she has simply set out a clear political position that most in her party prescribe to, yet dare not say out loud.
The KMT can be divided into three groups: those who advocate a policy of overt unification; those who favor unification by stealth; and local factions. The local factions have no political position, but they have formed a coalition with the unification camp to further common interests. As a result of the political strife recently unleashed by Ma, the local factions are now at odds with both unification factions.
Hung is a representative of the “overt unification” camp who openly advocates peaceful unification. Although their members are detested by pro-independence individuals, they do not pose a significant threat to Taiwan. The most dangerous KMT politicians are those, such as Ma, who belong to the “unification by stealth” camp. They play fast and lose with the truth, and when they sell off Taiwan, Taiwanese even help them count their proceeds.
Ma and other members of the “unification by stealth” camp actively push for so-called “unification” with China, while simultaneously spouting their “three noes” policy — no unification, no independence, no use of force — even placing “no unification” at the front of the list. In reality, they are actively paving the way for unification, by forcing Taiwan’s economy to become reliant on China, so that Taiwan’s gradual drift toward unification would be inevitable and unstoppable.
During Ma’s presidency, he was constantly changing the “status quo” to achieve his goal of unification. He pursued a policy of unification by stealth — never saying so out loud, yet working at it behind the scenes. In doing so, Ma set himself against the pro-independence leaders who talk the talk, but never actually do anything to further their cause. The leading lights of the independence camp take to the streets in protest, but in the end it is just a lot of talk and they were crushed by Ma and the others in the “unification by stealth” camp.
One can now see that if Ma had not started a war within his own party — and in doing so broken the alliance between the unification and local factions — Taiwan’s future would have hung in the balance.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor and chairman of the Society for the Promotion of Taiwanese Security.
Translated by Edward Jones
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95