KMT remains delusional
Bill Mcgregor asks a very pertinent question (Letters, Dec. 31, page 8). To the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), “one China” means the Republic of China (ROC) and all the territory that is claimed to be within that polity as stated in the 1946 ROC Constitution. This Constitution does not explicitly mention Taiwan or any other geographical area. Instead, it makes a vague reference to territories previously considered to be part of the ROC before World War II — as detailed in the failed 1936 Constitution, rejected at the time by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Neither the original 1912 ROC Constitution nor the 1923 Constitution included Taiwan as a part of the ROC for the simple reason that the framers accepted at the time that Taiwan was Japanese territory — something they did not envisage would change in the near future.
This administration uses the so-called “1992 consensus” to maintain the myth that the ROC equates to China, a definition utilized to meet the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) demand that Taiwan is a part of China, whether ROC or PRC. It is essentially a political convenience that is critical to facilitating negotiations with Beijing. Indeed, shortly after coming to power, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took great care to turn back the clock and posit Taiwan as nothing more than a region or area of the ROC.
This KMT administration will not directly define their interpretation of the so-called “1992 consensus,” since to do so would highlight the fact that the Taiwanese government is still making an absurd claim upon the territories of the PRC, 32 years after the rest of the world firmly rejected such a claim.
Under this retrograde KMT administration, the ROC is an independent sovereign nation, not Taiwan. The word Taiwan, as a synonym for the nation’s title, is used by the KMT mostly before elections to beguile voters because they know that most people in Taiwan regard “Taiwan” and the “ROC” as mutually equivalent terms, both sharing the same sovereignty and de facto independence. The KMT charter and leadership do not share this perception. To them the ROC is literally their nation, including all of the PRC; and Taiwan is but a small part of it.
The celebration of the ROC centennial is evidence of their desperation to reignite the identification of Taiwanese as Chinese, whose nation is China, whatever the -interpretation. The key objective of the KMT remains the defense of their ROC project, regardless of Taiwanese democracy or the wishes of Taiwanese. To this end, the greatest threat to the KMT is not the PRC or CCP, but the vast majority of Taiwanese who, to the KMT, insultingly deign to believe that Taiwan is a nation separate from China as the rest of the world perceives it.
Bill will be waiting a long time if he wishes the KMT to explicitly state their interpretation of “one China” under the so-called“1992 consensus.” For the KMT, the definition of “one China” under the fictional “1992 consensus” is unimportant — what is critical is that it facilitates the retention of Taiwan as Chinese territory in any form and at any cost.
BEN GOREN
Taichung
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS