The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Wednesday unanimously passed a proposal to have outgoing chairman Lien Chan (連戰) serve as the party's honorary chairman after he steps down next month. Accepting the title specifically created for him, Lien said that he would be a "lifetime volunteer" for the party.
To simplify matters, the KMT has so far not considered amending its regulations and formalizing the post. In other words, the title of honorary chairman has been presented to Lien and Lien alone -- no succeeding chairmen are likely to enjoy such an esteemed designation.
But is Lien really fit for the title? And does the KMT really need to have an honorary chairman? In all of its history, the KMT has only had five chairmen: Sun Yat-sen (
Has Lien, a two-time presidential election loser, really outperformed his predecessors? The Chinese Communist Party, despite all of its dictatorial trappings and inclinations, did not have a special title created for paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (
The very fact that the title had to be made up suggests the KMT has ignored the grassroots voters who comprehensively rejected Lien's favored candidate and thus is yet to ditch its feudalist thinking -- observe the new generation of leaders scratching their heads over what to do with their vain predecessors. Worse, the creation of an honorary position may affect future party operations.
After Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
But let's not forget Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-ping (
Given that Lien will serve as the president of a KMT-linked think tank in addition to being honorary chairman, the question needs to be asked: Will he continue to pull the strings?
Since cross-strait affairs will probably be one of the central concerns of Lien's think tank, who now will have the last word on cross-strait policy?
"It's better to quit while you're ahead," as they say. Lien doesn't believe in this old slice of wisdom, and so he is not likely to reconsider accepting the honorary chairman's post. Having finally presided over something the KMT can be proud of -- a genuinely democratic party election -- Lien could have taken a graceful bow and left the stage.
Instead, he is likely to make himself an even bigger laughingstock as the KMT struggles to transform itself into a genuinely democratic party of the present.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS