Sat, Aug 25, 2018 - Page 8 News List

KMT must choose where it stands

By Jerome Keating

Such is the fog created by the Chinese discourse; it is a fog that also ignores how present-day Mongolia is not considered a “breakaway province” under the same judgment, or how in the 1930s, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) advocated that Taiwan become “independent” of Japan.

Return to Schmitt, where he posits that the realistic basis of politics and nationhood is knowing who is a friend and who is an enemy, and how an enemy need not be based on nationality.

The clear enemy of Taiwan’s democracy is a hegemonic China. What, then, about the KMT and the alleged “1992 consensus?”

In the Chinese Civil War, the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) fought as enemies for control of China; this was a classic fight that clearly fits Schmitt’s distinction.

The CCP won that civil war and created the PRC. For this reason it has never agreed to the KMT spin of the bogus “1992 consensus” that there can be “one China with different interpretations.” Anyone who interprets the CCP victory in any other way is its enemy.

However, the CCP’s victory in the civil war and any claim to possession of Taiwan are two separate matters. This is what casts a whole new light on the KMT’s insistence on the bogus “1992 consensus.”

Why does the KMT still try to foist its spin of two interpretations of “one China” on Taiwan and the world?

Moreover, does this action in itself make the KMT an enemy of Taiwan’s democracy?

The KMT did not begin this spin until it lost the presidency in the 2000 democratic election, an election that became a warning of more democratic defeats and a deepening revelation that it had been a “colonizing diaspora.”

In Chinese history, the profitable switching of sides is a common factor. Chen Yi (陳儀) is a good example and one close to home for Taiwan. He in 1927 switched from warlord Sung Chuang-fang (孫傳芳) to Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and was eventually rewarded with the post of governor of Taiwan Province in 1945.

The 228 Incident lost him that job, but he was still rewarded by being made provincial chairman in Zhejiang, where he started colluding with the winning communists. This made him no longer a friend, but an enemy of Chiang and led to his execution in 1950.

Chen’s example represents the question that Taiwanese must ask of all KMT members who maintain that there was a “1992 consensus” and how it contains the belief that there is only “one China with different interpretations.”

There is no question that what makes Taiwan, Taiwan is its democracy. Therefore, those that support that democracy are Taiwan’s friends and those that work against it are its enemies.

If the KMT is more loyal to its fabricated “1992 consensus,” it has by that action become the enemy of a democratic Taiwan and not its friend. Does this now make it the new Chen?

There is more. This matter of the fabricated “1992 consensus” also exposes the harsh reality that must be examined in the coming elections. It raises the question that Taiwanese must ask of all candidates.

Where do you stand as regards Taiwan’s democracy? Are you its friend or its enemy and would you die to defend it?

This story has been viewed 3787 times.

Comments will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned.

TOP top