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
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
RSS