Thu, Dec 19, 2024 page8

• EDITORIAL: Old wine in a new bottle

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  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.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Trump’s picks a rude awakening for China

  • 2

    Rutte’s China ‘bully’ warning hailed

  • 3

    Chinese military ships return to China

  • 4

    Taipei MRT’s operations for New Year announced

  • 5

    First batch of M1A2 tanks arrive in Taipei