Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) last month published a two-volume memoir in which he called “on the mainland to face up to the existence of the government of the Republic of China [ROC],” adding that “only with such political mutual trust can cross-strait dialogue begin.”
The memoir quickly drew a tide of criticism from Chinese media such as Web sites Straits Express and NetEase, and the Fujian Daily, which described Lien’s emphasis on the ROC as being almost identical to the “two-state theory” proposed by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), and President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) statement that neither side of the Taiwan Strait should be subordinate to the other.
Chinese media said that when Lien made his “icebreaker trip” to China in 2005, he received a grand reception and a warm welcome from Chinese.
They said that during his visit he only mentioned the ROC once, when he said that Sun Yat-sen (孫中山) had led the national revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty and established the first democratic republic in Asia — the ROC.
Now that Lien is too old to travel to China, he has “stopped pretending,” which shows him to be fickle and untrustworthy, they said.
However, Lien visited China several times after 2005 and met with Chinese Communist Party leaders, including then-Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平). In Taiwan, Lien’s strong advocacy of cross-strait exchanges has led to him being regarded as “pro-China,” so why is he being castigated for calling on China to face up to the ROC’s existence?
It is because China denies that the ROC lives on in Taiwan proper, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, even after the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949. On Jan. 2, 2019, Xi equated the so-called “1992 consensus” with “national unification” and identified the means to achieve it as “one country, two systems,” which would turn Taiwan into a “special administrative region” like Hong Kong and Macau.
When Xi’s ally Song Tao (宋濤) was appointed director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office in December last year, he said that he would draw up a “two systems plan for Taiwan” this year.
That is why China regards Lien’s emphasis on the ROC as “implicit Taiwan independence.” No wonder KMT politicians often talk about the ROC when they are in Taiwan, but never dare to mention it when they are in China.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said at a meeting of the party’s Central Standing Committee on Jan. 18 that “the public as a whole wants to maintain ... the peaceful and stable status quo of the Republic of China.”
Chu and the KMT keep saying the government should restart cross-strait dialogue, but even KMT elder statesman Lien says that if China does not face up to the ROC’s existence, there will be no political trust between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and no hope of launching talks. Lien’s remarks should be a wake-up call for Chu and the KMT.
Fan Shih-ping is a professor in National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Political Science.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS