To coincide with the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, which opened on Tuesday last week, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Youth League head Lin Chia-hsing (林家興), along with members of a group calling itself the “Republic of China (ROC) faction” within the KMT, launched a fundraiser to place an advertisement in the Washington Post.
The proposed ad was to elicit international support for Taiwan’s return to the UN, and for the resumption of US-ROC diplomatic relations. The fundraising banner bore the hashtags “Free China is coming back,” “anti-communism” and “ROCUN,” and included the line, in Chinese, “let the world see the ROC (Taiwan).”
The initiative began on Sept. 4 and ended 10 days later, just before the UN General Assembly opened. The goal was to raise NT$2.4 million (US$82,147), but it secured just over NT$40,000.
Perhaps the messaging left many scratching their heads. At least, the banner helpfully identified the ROC as Taiwan. Apparently, even the KMT, or at least the younger generation, understands that “the ROC” is less recognizable to the international community than “Taiwan.”
Lin and his group stressed the “anti-communism” and the “Free China” hashtags to differentiate the ROC from communist China, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic has increased suspicions of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
However, to an international audience, the slogans appear anachronistic. There is no association between Taiwan and communism, nor any confusion over the difference between Taiwan and China, in the international discourse.
If the messages were for a domestic audience, the concept of “Free China” would have little relevance. The “anti-communism” tag might have appealed to the Taiwanese electorate, whose appetite has moved away from former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pro-China policies, and probably also to some more practical members of the KMT thinking seriously about re-election prospects.
The distinction between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the ROC is contentious, at least, and sits at the root of the reason Taiwan — the ROC — was kicked out of the UN. It also lies at the core of the so-called “1992 consensus” that is proving such a headache for KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣).
The UN will only recognize one representative of China. Ma suggested a bid to return to the UN during his 2008 presidential election campaign, but quickly ditched the idea to pursue a “diplomatic truce” with the CCP that relied on the “1992 consensus,” with the ROC and PRC insisting upon their own interpretation of what “one China” means.
While Ma was congratulating himself on cultivating better economic relations with the PRC, he neglected to push his party’s definition of the ROC.
Meanwhile, China used its membership and influence within the UN to consistently push its message that the PRC is the only legitimate representative of China, and that Taiwan is a part of its territory.
Over the past decade, the CCP has systematically shifted the goal posts and gradually hijacked the meaning of the “1992 consensus,” to the extent that it is hardly recognizable.
Chiang has never turned his back on what he believes the KMT tradition and values to be, or on the ROC Constitution, but has maintained that he wishes to listen to voices of reform. He has thus far failed to wrest the KMT’s steering wheel from the hands of the Ma faction, and has not been allowed to move on from the “1992 consensus.”
During the party’s National Congress on Sept. 6, in a barely remarked-upon sleight of hand, Chiang shifted the goal posts himself, speaking of “the ‘1992 consensus’ based upon the ROC Constitution,” rolling back a decade of the CCP salami-slicing.
For that at least, he deserves some credit.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
RSS