Sun, May 09, 2004 page3

• Terrill: KMT party-state era came to an end last month

  • By Chang Yun-ping / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The party-state era of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) came to an end last month when the behaviors it learned during its time as a party-state caused it to act as if the March 20 election was not legitimate simply because the KMT was not the winner, a US-based scholar specializing in Taiwan-China relations said yesterday.

  Ross Terrill, a China expert and author of The New Chinese Empire (一中帝國大夢), said yesterday at a seminar held by Taiwan Advocates in Taichung: "The year 2004 has seen the last gasp of a party that still sees itself as something of a state. The KMT felt that if it lost, it must have been cheated.

  "A sense of entitlement to power gripped [KMT Chairman] Lien Chan (連戰) and [People First Party Chairman] James Soong (宋楚瑜). The leaders missed a number of opportunities [to appeal to the Taiwanese people], and the center of gravity in Taiwan's politics shifted," he said.

  Terrill -- of Harvard University's Fairbank Center -- delivered a speech yesterday at the seminar called "Taiwan: Democracy Shines, the Party-State Fades."

  Terrill said the KMT developed the characteristics of a party-state when Sun Yat-sen (孫中山) and former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) borrowed from European authoritarianism as well as from autocratic Chinese tradition.

  "The mandate of the KMT seemed to essentially come from above society -- perhaps it was a mandate from heaven, as with the Chinese emperors. The historical KMT did not see itself as dependent on the will of the people below," Terrill said.

  Terrill said that one reason that Lien and Soong lost was that they did not make clear their views on cross-strait relations. He said that Lien's policy toward China consisted of little more than reluctantly following along with some of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) ideas, all the while attacking Chen.

  In terms of cross-strait relations, Terrill said the biggest risk to Taiwan from China over the next 10 years is not military attack but subversion meant to destabilize Taiwan politically and socially.

  In this respect, Terrill said that Chen is correct in believing that the consolidation of Taiwanese identity and the creating of a feeling of solidarity among the nation's people is ultimately the best defense.

  Speaking on US policy, Terrill said that the burning question regarding the US is not whether Washington will defend Taiwan if China attacks it; rather, the issue is how much more political change Washington will accept in Taiwan without redefining its China-Taiwan policy.

  Terrill quoted David Limpton, a leading American sinologist: "Taiwan is in the process of separating itself from the strategic interests of the US and its friends in Asia-Pacific." Terrill went on to say that this is something that Washington will have to seriously evaluate in the course of its negotiations with Taiwan and China.

  As a final point, Terrill said that Taiwan will affect the future shape of Asia as democracy here provides an example to other regions around China's periphery.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Alcaraz, Sinner win their Roland Garros openers

  • 2

    Alcaraz struggles to 4th round in Paris

  • 3

    PSG crush Inter to win trophy

  • 4

    Blackpink to hold concert in Kaohsiung

  • 5

    Conte’s future uncertain even after Serie A title win