As Taiwan continues to digest the political ramifications of a landmark second-term majority government for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), it is important to note that the next four years will be shaped in no small part by the reaction of two parties on either side of the Taiwan Strait: the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
With the CCP, an immediate answer is unlikely, as the attention of its leader, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), will likely be consumed for many months dealing with the 2019 novel coronavirus.
Of more immediate interest is how the KMT is going to respond to its crushing defeats in Jan. 11’s elections. Its response will have a significant impact on Taiwanese politics and will shape Xi’s Taiwan policy.
The KMT essentially has two options:
It could adopt a continuity strategy, selecting a fresh-faced leader and enacting a superficial re-branding exercise in an attempt to persuade people that it has changed, but without changing any of its core policies.
This would be a high-risk strategy, based in no small part upon blind faith — hoping that the DPP will mess things up in the next four years and presenting the KMT with an opportunity to regain power.
A bolder and wiser approach would be to acknowledge the need for serious reform and do whatever it takes to bring the party in line with the needs and aspirations of an electorate that is more patriotic and outward-looking than in the past, and the majority of whom identify as Taiwanese, not Chinese.
Given the KMT’s historical, cultural and psychological attachment to China, this would be difficult, but not impossible.
On Tuesday, former New Taipei City mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) appeared to rule himself out as a candidate in the KMT’s chairperson by-election, writing on Facebook: “The party’s transformation will include me, but the election does not need to include me.”
A popular figure within the party, Chu had been widely tipped as a front-runner to succeed former KMT chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義). It might be that Chu has decided it is time for the party to pass the baton to the next generation to bring in fresh ideas and reform. If so, this is a good sign.
KMT Legislator Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) on Facebook yesterday warned that the party must avoid vacuous sloganeering and undergo real reform.
Whoever the next KMT leader is, if they are serious about reform, they will need to do much more than simply move the party away from its dogged adherence to the so-called “1992 consensus” — an explicit acceptance that Taiwan is part of China.
A good start would be for the party to finally grant the Ill-gotten Party Assets Settlement Committee unrestricted access to its archives. This would go a long way toward healing old wounds and help demonstrate that it is genuine about reform and repentant for its actions during the dark days of the Martial Law era.
Another welcome move would be for its new leader to ban closed-door meetings with Chinese officials, which undermine Taiwan’s democracy and make the party appear untrustworthy.
Above all, the KMT must unequivocally jettison its policy of unification with the People’s Republic of China.
The KMT is at a crossroads: If it accepts the need for wholesale reform, it might survive and provide a much-needed political consensus on which Taiwan can fortify its democracy.
However, if it cleaves to outdated shibboleths, it will end up in the dustbin of history.
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 Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
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