Following a fierce campaign battle over the past six or seven months, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) performance was less than ideal, as it was defeated in the presidential and legislative elections on Jan. 11.
The young generation of party members now have the responsibility to face the concerns of the next generation.
To do so, we must review the party’s political direction and cross-strait policy to determine whether it is capable of aligning itself with public opinion and taking Taiwanese forward.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) upheld its policy of protecting Taiwan against China while campaigning, but what exactly was the KMT’s discourse?
In the past, young KMT members repeatedly urged the party leadership and KMT Central Standing Committee to review its policy on the “1992 consensus” — the view that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation [of what China is],” which has been used by the party as a magical “political talisman.”
The older generation’s only response to these calls was to recall the glory of 1992 cross-strait negotiations and share stories of the situation during the talks.
While the KMT was unwilling to face up to the reality of today’s situation, People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), when campaigning for president, said that even if the pan-blue camp expressed its opposition to Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formula loudly and resolutely, the three-decade old “1992 consensus” is outdated and unworkable.
However, the KMT is holding on hard to the “1992 consensus” as if it were as precious as an ancestral tablet, and has absolutely no intention of discussing whether the position is still legitimate.
The DPP, on the other hand, has been able to gradually conceal its pro-Taiwanese independence party platform and adjust its political position by saying that it is protecting Taiwan against China, while leaning toward the political center by using the national title “Republic of China, Taiwan.”
This raises the question of whether the KMT has the courage to adjust its discourse just as the DPP has done.
The KMT’s position used to be that it was fighting communism, as the Chinese Communist Party’s rule caused hardship for Chinese. Faced with China’s growing national strength and international clout, this is a position that will be difficult to maintain.
As China is the world’s second-largest economy, the KMT’s continued insistence that it will retake the Chinese mainland and unify China is nothing but an unrealistic joke.
It is our obligation to face up to the next generation.
If the KMT really wants to continue to exist over the next 20 or 40 years, it must look inward and try to determine whether the party and its cross-strait policy will be able to develop in step with public opinion.
Allen Tien is chairman of the KMT Youth League.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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