Former legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Dec. 8 proposed a new formulation for peace across the Taiwan Strait. Formally retired from politics, he delivered the proposal on behalf of the Middle Way Peace Alliance.
Everybody would like peace. Wang is presenting a way for this to be achieved, just as Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), also of the KMT, said he was attempting to do with his misguided hosting earlier this week of the Taipei-Shanghai Twin-City Forum.
However, Wang’s “new” formulation — whether intentional or not — reinforces the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) stance. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The proposal is that “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not subordinate to each other in terms of governance, but share sovereignty without division,” and that there should be “separate governance without division.”
Why is Wang presenting this now? He has said that the proposal would be regarded as coming from the “localization” faction of the KMT, despite his insistence that he does not represent such a stance, it being “a label pinned on him by the media.” He can rest assured that nobody should be persuaded that his proposal is in any way a “pro-Taiwan” version of the KMT’s message.
The alliance’s proposal was not officially endorsed by the KMT, although major figures in the party were at Sunday’s event, including Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) and many legislators, including Huang Jen (黃仁). The KMT has also said that Wang’s proposition coheres to the party’s long-held stance, while Ma Ying-jeou Foundation director Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑) has said that the proposal is in line with former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) position.
Wang is looking for a way to secure peace, so his proposal should not be dismissed out of hand. It warrants a closer look.
He said that if ideology is set aside and the seemingly intractable cross-strait differences are approached in a rational way, returning to historical facts, a viable solution should be possible.
This is the “sheep’s clothing.” It is precisely the interpretation of the historical “facts” that is the problem and the basis of the differences between a pro-Taiwan sovereignty stance and the “one China” position of the KMT and the CCP.
Wang can be taken at his word when he says he does not represent a pro-localization stance: He says he has not mentioned the so-called “1992 consensus,” but the “new” formulation has the “consensus,” “one China” and “one country, two systems” written all over it.
The name Middle Way Peace Alliance sounds harmless enough. The Chinese character zhong (中) for “middle” has many meanings, including being an abbreviation of “China,” as Wang’s viewpoint represents the People’s Republic of “China,” the Republic of “China” as understood by the KMT and the “Chinese” Nationalist Party. It is ideological as it ignores Taiwan in the most fundamental way. Wang talks of historical facts, but ignores the fact of Taiwan’s existence and colonial complications prior to 1945, when the KMT was asked to govern — not assume sovereignty of — Taiwan after the Japanese surrender in World War II.
His proposal assumes subordination to the CCP, as it allows Beijing to unilaterally dictate the parameters in which dialogue can take place, as was made clear in the response to the proposal by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokeswoman Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) on Wednesday last week.
At least the New Power Party can see Wang’s proposal for what it is: the “1992 consensus,” “one China” and “one country, two systems” dressed up in perplexing form, or old wine presented unconvincingly in new bottles.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS