Over the past seven years, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) China policy has made it possible for several historic agreements between Taiwan and China to be signed.
However, the KMT has made a major political mistake by not having continuously adjusted its China policies in line with the current political development in Taiwan. Consequently, the KMT’s China policy is a failure that provides poor policy direction for future challenges, because it does not offer a coherent and timely formula for handling both China and Taiwan at the same time, contrary to the main opposition Democratic Progressive Party.
In order to regain credibility, the KMT needs a new comprehensive China policy, which embraces the wishes of Taiwanese.
The KMT’s China policy is weak because it has no answers to social or political developments. It is too detached from everyday problems, such as stagnant wages, increased inequality, youth unemployment and democratic development. A China policy that neglects important domestic issues is not sustainable. It creates sociopolitical problems that are likely to challenge cross-strait relations, which is already the case.
The KMT has to explain how its China policy can create trust in cross-strait relations among Taiwanese, as mistrust contributed greatly to its crushing defeat in November last year’s nine-in-one elections.
How can the KMT avoid an overdependence on China, and ensure improved living standards in Taiwan? How can the KMT ratify the service trade agreement that has been stalled in the Legislative Yuan since the Sunflower movement’s occupation of the main chamber? Can the KMT ensure more transparency in the monitoring of trade agreements between Taiwan and China?
A reality check reveals that the so-called “1992-consensus” and thus the foundation of the KMT’s China policy cannot solve these issues and this paralyzes cross-strait relations.
The “1992 consensus,” a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000, refers to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
The KMT’s China policy is not even beneficial to China. Solid and sustainable agreements that can last longer than one single government should be China’s core interest in the coming years in order to build trust. This requires Taiwan to have a government with a pragmatic and peaceful China policy, based on the “status quo,” which clearly benefits Taiwanese. Moreover, it demands healthy political processes in Taiwan.
It is embarrassing that the KMT has not been able to develop an innovative and convincing new China policy, despite being in office for seven years. The current political climate has developed over years, but the KMT seems to have been trapped in a cross-strait bubble, in which all other arguments against the current policy have been ignored and treated as insignificant disturbances that are unlikely to change the overall direction. New policies could have been developed by listening to Taiwanese and allowing new ideas to flourish.
Those who continue to praise the “1992 consensus” and the KMT’s current China policy do not understand political developments over the past four years. The economic integration between Taiwan and China has a strong impact on political developments and vice versa.
Therefore, such supporters should start considering better alternatives in the opposition. The KMT’s current China policy has passed its expiry date.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner.
Election seasons expose societal divisions and contrasting visions about the future of Taiwan. They also offer opportunities for leaders to forge unity around practical ideas for strengthening Taiwan’s resilience. Beijing has in the past sought to exacerbate divisions within Taiwan. For Beijing, a divided Taiwan is less likely to pursue permanent separation. It also is more manipulatable than a united Taiwan. A divided polity has lower trust in government institutions and diminished capacity to solve societal challenges. As my co-authors Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser, and I recently wrote in our book US-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis?, “Beijing wants
Taiwan has never had a president who is not from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Could next year’s presidential election put a third-party candidate in office? The contenders who have thrown their hats into the ring are Vice President William Lai (賴清德) of the DPP, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). A monthly poll released by my-formosa.com on Monday showed support for Hou nosediving from 26 percent to 18.3 percent, the lowest among the three presidential hopefuls. It was a surprising
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election. The selection process was replete with controversy, mainly because the KMT has never stipulated a set of protocols for its presidential nominations. Yet, viewed from a historical perspective, the KMT has improved to some extent. There are two fundamental differences between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP): First, the DPP believes that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign country with independent autonomy, meaning that Taiwan and China are two different entities. The KMT, on the
The presidential election is to be held concurrently with the legislative elections in January next year. While former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration was fraught with challenges, as he never commanded a legislative majority, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) did not have this problem. In her two terms in office, she has been able to carry out her vision and policies and thereby bear full responsibility for her performance. As a result, the public is not only waiting on tenterhooks to see the results of the presidential election, but also whether the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will be able to hold
RSS