Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) has returned to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). In 1993, Jaw withdrew from the KMT to cofound the New Party, as he could not tolerate then-president and KMT chairman Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) pro-localization policies.
He has returned to the KMT because the party no longer promotes localization and a sense of Chinese supremacy is staging a comeback.
However, the KMT that Jaw is pledging to revitalize is not the KMT that opposed the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Instead, it is a “Chinese New Party” moving toward convergence with the CCP.
On cross-strait relations, Jaw has said that Taiwan and China would “ensure 100 years of peace by calling each other brother.”
Twenty or 30 years ago, I said that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait could be “brother states” built on economic reciprocity and cultural exchanges while remaining politically independent. Not only did the CCP reject that, even Jaw turned it down.
What Jaw means when he says that Taiwan and China can be “brothers” is that Taiwan is the little brother that yields to the Chinese big brother. What kind of brotherhood is that?
Jaw has also announced a presidential bid for 2024, and accused the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of dominating Taiwan’s politics. He said that, as the DPP becomes increasingly arrogant, he is worried about the political situation.
That is pretty strange. Under the Chiang (蔣) family-led KMT one-party rule, the KMT did as it pleased, arresting, detaining and executing people. That did not worry Jaw when he chose to join the KMT for the first time.
Earlier this month, Jaw portrayed the DPP government as the Boxers during the Boxer Rebellion and vowed to eliminate the “Boxers” who dominate Taiwanese politics. That is pretty ridiculous. Having sided against democracy, reform and mainstream trends since his school years, he is the real “Boxer.”
Looking back at the end of the Qing Dynasty, the problem with the Boxers was not their fearlessness of firearms, but their stubborn conservatism and their inability to accept that times were changing. They were a group with outdated ideas and manipulated by vested interests.
In the 1990s, Taiwan started a transition toward democratization and localization. As the transition progressed, the vested interests and the outdated ideas that dominated during the Chiang reign could not easliy be adjusted. Those who held these ideas mobilized against the changes. Judged by their inability to adapt to political reform and change, they were more like the Boxers.
Not long ago, Jaw’s “brother,” China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Ma Xiaoguang (馬曉光), chimed in with Jaw, saying that the DPP was causing cross-strait tension and that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should abandon the idea of Taiwanese independence to ease the tension.
In response, Tsai should clarify that she does not advocate Taiwan independence and say that Beijing should give up its autocratic totalitarianism, because such rule can never be in line with democratic rule.
Which system should be blamed for the tension, the authoritarian one or democratic one? Beijing and Jaw should say clearly what they think.
Lee Hsiao-feng is an honorary professor at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Eddy Chang
I am just getting around to reading Dr. Chang Hsien-yi’s (張憲義) oral history published in 2016 entitled Nuclear Bomb! Spy? CIA (核彈! 間諜? CIA). Dr. Chang’s defection to the Central Intelligence Agency 33 years ago is one of the reasons that Taiwan does not have a nuclear deterrent today in the face of yet another Formosa Strait Crisis, and from his book, I can see that Dr. Chang still has strong views on the subject. In the Second Formosa Strait Crisis from August to October 1958, the United States deflected Sino-Soviet aggression against the offshore islands of Quemoy (金門) and Matsu
Australia’s decades-long battle to acquire a new French-designed attack submarine to replace its aging Collins class fleet bears all the hallmarks of a bureaucratic boondoggle. The Attack-class submarine project, initially estimated to cost A$20 billion to A$25 billion (US$15.6 billion to US$19.5 billion at the current exchange rate), had by 2016 doubled to A$50 billion, and almost doubled again to A$90 billion by February last year. Because of delays, the French-led Naval Group consortium would not begin cutting steel on the first submarine until 2024, which means the first vessel would not be operational until after 2030 — and the last
When Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called for a reset of bilateral relations with the US, a White House spokesperson replied that Washington saw the relationship as one of strong competition that required a position of strength. It is clear that US President Joe Biden’s administration is not simply reversing former US Donald Trump’s policies. Citing Thucydides’ attribution of the Peloponnesian War to Sparta’s fear of a rising Athens, some analysts believe the US-China relationship is entering a period of conflict pitting an established hegemon against an increasingly powerful challenger. I am not that pessimistic. In my view, economic
If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was looking for some respite after the battering former US president Donald Trump gave it, it has been swiftly refused that hope. US President Joe Biden and his administration are making it clear that there is little chance of a return to the “strategic patience” of former US president Barack Obama’s era. In terms of the US’ approach to Beijing’s relations with Taipei, there has been a continuation of the selective strategic clarity the Trump administration favored over the “strategic ambiguity” of previous US administrations. One indication of this occurred during a virtual event on