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
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS