Former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) once called former US president Richard Nixon a “clown.” Chiang’s son and successor, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), called former US secretary of state and national security adviser Henry Kissinger a “traitor.” In contrast, Chinese leaders from former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) chairman Mao Zedong (毛澤東) to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近) have called Nixon and Kissinger “old friends of China.” In the zero-sum game played by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP, the two parties have sharply contrasting love-hate attitudes toward Kissinger because he sold out the KMT and embraced the CCP.
The unworthy successors of the Chiangs now praise Kissinger, who died on Wednesday last week, for his contributions to “peace in the Indo-Pacific region.” They forget how the “blood letter from Nanhai,” which was fabricated by the KMT, said that Kissinger’s actions in negotiating the Paris Peace Accords caused South Vietnam to fall into the hands of the communists and countless “boat people” to flee across the seas as refugees.
Kissinger was a pragmatist who had no regard for the rights of small and weak nations. He disregarded the “legitimate right to govern China” concocted by the KMT. Although Kissinger was not the person to establish diplomatic relations between the US and China, it likely would have happened around the middle of a second presidential term had Nixon not been impeached.
FICTITIOUS
Chiang Kai-shek’s regime, which lost the Chinese Civil War to the CCP and fled in exile to Taiwan, claimed the fictitious “legitimate right to govern China.” Relying on US support, it continued to occupy China’s seat in the UN until Kissinger accepted the idea of “one China,” which led to the right to represent China in the UN being “restored” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This turn of events was a mortal blow to the KMT.
It made no sense for the KMT government to represent China, so it kept losing support. In 1971, the US changed its tune, proposing a “dual representation” formula in response to a UN motion to oust the ROC from China’s seat, but Kissinger visited Beijing just as the issue was being debated in the UN General Assembly. Seeing which way the wind was blowing, many countries altered their positions and the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” were driven out of the UN.
The KMT got away with its fictitious “legitimate right” and played a zero-sum game for 20 years until the US acknowledged “one China” in the 1972 Shanghai Communique, eventually changing its diplomatic recognition of China to the PRC. The KMT brought all this on itself. When make-believe collides with reality, the fantasy is doomed to lose.
Kissinger sold out the KMT, but he did not sell out Taiwan. Former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) knew that Taiwan’s status in the Treaty of San Francisco had been left undetermined, so he asked the US to declare that Taiwan had been given back to China after World War II. Kissinger refused, so in the Shanghai Communique, the US only “acknowledged” that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China.”
As Taiwan’s democratic evolution proceeds, the majority of people in Taiwan identify as Taiwanese, and believe that the Republic of China is sovereign and independent and that it and the PRC are not subordinate to each another. Only the traitors and clowns of the KMT, who would be scolded by the Chiangs, echo the fictitious “1992 consensus” and “one China.”
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Last week, Nvidia chief executive officer Jensen Huang (黃仁勳) unveiled the location of Nvidia’s new Taipei headquarters and announced plans to build the world’s first large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) supercomputer in Taiwan. In Taipei, Huang’s announcement was welcomed as a milestone for Taiwan’s tech industry. However, beneath the excitement lies a significant question: Can Taiwan’s electricity infrastructure, especially its renewable energy supply, keep up with growing demand from AI chipmaking? Despite its leadership in digital hardware, Taiwan lags behind in renewable energy adoption. Moreover, the electricity grid is already experiencing supply shortages. As Taiwan’s role in AI manufacturing expands, it is critical that