Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week said that the reopening of the party’s liaison office in the US signaled a “return” of its voice in Washington.
The word “return” implies that there was a break-off and that the KMT is seeking to “rekindle” its relationship with the US.
Chu’s trip to the US is a political maneuver and statement. The move is not only to show goodwill to the US, but to use the opportunity to remove the KMT’s “anti-US, pro-China” label.
At the Washington-based Brookings Institution, Chu emphasized that the KMT had been “mislabeled” due to the manipulation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), saying that the KMT is neither anti-US nor pro-China.
However, having the word “Chinese” in its name, the KMT’s “pro-China-ness” has nothing to do with the DPP. The question is not whether the KMT is pro-China, but whether it stands for China.
The KMT could always argue that there is a gap between a signifier and what it signifies, and that it uses “Chinese” in its name without signifying anything.
In academic terms, “Chinese” as a signifier represents a concept, while the signified does not necessarily evoke meaning.
Nevertheless, there have been proposals from within the KMT to change “Chinese” to “Taiwanese.” One such motion was even discussed at a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting.
However, Chu shot down the motion, saying that “it would mislead supporters into thinking that the KMT is cutting ties with China and severing any past connections with it.”
Thus, assumptions about Chu’s pro-China stance do not come out of the blue.
So how does the KMT explain the so-called “1992 consensus”?
Chu most recently came up with the creative phrase “non-consensus consensus,” but, setting aside the rhetoric, all that is left of his new explanation is that there is no “consensus.”
Without a meaningful “1992 consensus,” the KMT has held on to the idea of “one China, different interpretations,” while the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) endorses the “one China principle.”
This proves that the “1992 consensus” is the biggest lump of wool that the KMT and CCP have pulled over people’s eyes.
To cover up the deception of the “1992 consensus,” Chu thought that he could imitate the US’ “one China” policy by playing with ambiguity.
However, the catch is that Washington devised the policy to counter Beijing’s “one China principle” — there were no smoke and mirrors, as there had been no consensus on any “one China” issue between the US and China in the first place.
Why does Chu draw a connection between being pro-China and being anti-US?
In Chu’s words, “ties with China and past connections with it” would make being “pro-China” and “anti-US” two sides of the same coin.
Furthermore, there has been a fair share of pro-China speeches from members of the KMT, such as former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), former KMT chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) and Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕).
Soon after Chu arrived in the US, Ma took to Facebook to lambast the DPP for turning Taiwan into an “illiberal democracy.”
In a democratic society, citizens have the right to criticize the government, as well as to express their opinion, including by saying that Taiwan is becoming an illiberal democracy.
However, Ma’s comments intended to disparage Taiwan, pander to the CCP, and praise Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for “upholding and protecting human rights in all areas, and ruling by law.”
Since the CCP established its regime, it has been following the principle that all Chinese should serve the party.
Chinese leaders since Mao Zedong (毛澤東) have been exploiting their subjects, and abusing democracy, rule of law and human rights.
While Ma’s bootlicking has been done out of ingratiation, Chu’s words should earn him a slap in the face.
Ma’s illiberal democracy comment is in contrast to Chu’s statement that Taiwan has been enjoying democracy thanks to the Republic of China Constitution.
Chu might not have been lying through his teeth like Ma did, but he seemed to have forgotten that Taiwan achieved real democracy after multiple constitutional reforms.
Is Chu changing tack to change the KMT’s pro-China image? Even though the public acknowledges this improvement, it does not mean the KMT could wipe the slate of the past clean.
Taiwanese could not be happier to see change, but the question remains: Can a weak chairman like Chu change the KMT against all odds? Only time will tell.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Rita Wang
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
RSS