Taiwan Elections: Kuomintang Party ... wants peace with China! (The other China).

[alhoon]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67909071

The Gist: Taiwan has elections in a few days. The Kuomintang Party of Taiwan, the same party that was in a war with Mao in the 40s and their nationalistic leaders held only to Taiwan after 1949 under a Kuomintang dictator Chiang Kai-shek. The Kuomintang started to relax their authoritarian hold on power after the death of Chiang Kai-shek, until they kinda-but-not-exactly lifted the military law in 1987 and eventually had presidential elections in 1996 (which the Kuomintang won).
Since elections started, the KMT has won some and lost some.
Presently, the Democratic Progressive Party is in power for the past 8 years. Their pursuit of a sovereign Taiwan and a different national identity (thinking themselves Taiwanese first, not Chinese) has earned China's anger and China is building up forces around them.

To the present: The KMT, the guys that have been claiming for 50 or so years that they are the real China, the grandkids of people that fought a brutal (very brutal) war against the other China (the big one, the People's Republic of China), now ... want peace. They do want independence but consider themselves Chinese and they don't want to push too hard.
Again: Those are the KMT! The bloody, ruthless KMT that fought against the equally bloody and ruthless CCP in the worst civil war in modern history.


So... reading the article further, I find out that the current version of the KMT is the one more tolerated by China for some reason.
The turn of the KMT from a dictator's political (and military) arm to a kinda-democratic Chinese-nationalistic force and their less-vigorous take on antagonizing China is a big surprise. I don't want to name parties as it would derail the discussion, but think of say ... the UUP suggesting a moderate approach on IRA in the 80s.


That said: Do you guys believe the KMT views peace seriously, or they say that just to get votes and deny their political competition some seats in the parliament?
What do you think will follow another DPP win? Will China keep saber-rattling? Would that change (to the better or to the worse) if KMT won (unlikely)?

[conon394]

No after watching what happened in Hong Kong I doubt anyone in the KMT views peace seriously as the way China wants it - reunification. What thay mean is just dialing back the rhetoric of an increasing majority in Taiwan that has no desire to join the main land or see themselves as Chinese. They want the ambiguity and good business relations with China.

"Will China keep saber-rattling?"

Yes.

But looking a bit more empty after recent reports kinda suggest rumor of corruption in the PLA etc are well founded.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...a-purge-report

Also given increasing evidence of how made up the size of the Chinese economy again the saber rattles might seem hollow.

Would that change (to the better or to the worse) if KMT won (unlikely)?

Probably not much really. China might go more low key and the KMT with likely a very narrow victory foes not have much to really swerve to a real pro China policy and I doubt it really wants that.

[alhoon]

The KMT turning pro-China is like the Houthis turning to a pro-"Republic of Yemen" policy.
Even the more low key approach is ... as stunning as Houthis turning to a more moderate, pro-peace approach on Yemen.
It is jaw-dropping change.

[conon394]

The KMT turning pro-China is like the Houthis turning to a pro-"Republic of Yemen" policy.
Even the more low key approach is ... as stunning as Houthis turning to a more moderate, pro-peace approach on Yemen.
It is jaw-dropping change.

I don't think it pro Chinese per say. It more just keep head down get along and string out the the current ambiguity forever since it was working well for Taiwan. My wife has a lot science collaborates in Taiwan and my kids HS had a exchange students form there thus on the younger side and they all identify as Taiwanese not Chinese. Thus impression is also there is a big geezer cohort still alive that vote KMT because they are sorta the first/second gen of the boat and still see themselves as Chinese and the Independence ideal gives them the willies. Also I would suspect there is a section KMT voters who think if you don't rock the boat long enough the Chinese communist party will collapse and so reunification will not be a bad thing.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Do you guys believe the KMT views peace seriously, or they say that just to get votes and deny their political competition some seats in the parliament?

We should be clear that the vast majority of Taiwanese view cross-strait peace seriously, and not just because the PLARF could turn the place into a parking lot on its own without any invasion. The vast majority favor the status quo for economic as well as political reasons. Only tiny minorities support full reunification or full independence.

As for the KMT, they oppose Taiwanese independence for the same reasons the CCP does - not because they are communist, but because they are Chinese and support One China. They also oppose reunification by force or in a way that alters the status quo, and represent the center-right. The DPP, being left wing and secessionist, are anti-China and pro-West when it comes to Taiwan’s “foreign policy,” and the US should be careful to maintain a balance in taking advantage of the Party’s opposition to Beijing.

The US should also maintain support for One China as the cornerstone of its China policy. Any overt move to support Taiwanese independence would not only trigger a war but also offend the deeply held beliefs of most Chinese people. If nothing else, the US is not prepared for a full scale war with China, and that is what will happen if Beijing perceives that Taiwan is likely to declare full independence with US support.

What do you think will follow another DPP win? Will China keep saber-rattling?

Yes, a DPP win will mean more of the escalations we’ve seen, with Beijing using Taipei’s “provocations” to practice for and assert military control of areas around Taiwan. A crescendo in this tit for tat increases opportunities for misunderstanding and miscalculation on both sides. This environment coincides with a steep and prolonged slowdown in Chinese economic growth and growing domestic instability. It could make the PRC more sensitive to perceived external threats or challenges to its authority and interests, with less to lose by resorting to military force in defense of those interests.

Would that change (to the better or to the worse) if KMT won (unlikely)?

The PRC would see it as a win, and a blow to the US. They’d probably be right. It may or may not reduce cross-strait tensions, depending on how much distance the KMT subsequently would push for between Taipei and Washington. Even if the KMT were to push for closer ties with Beijing, I think what happened to Hong Kong precludes the former from making meaningful strides toward “one country two systems,” especially because their hold on power would be tenuous.

[Love Mountain]

I bet y'all can't even describe what actually happened in Hong Kong for me with any semblance of accuracy.

As for the KMT, they oppose Taiwanese independence for the same reasons the CCP does - not because they are communist, but because they are Chinese and support One China. They also oppose reunification by force or in a way that alters the status quo, and represent the center-right. The DPP, being left wing and secessionist, are anti-China and pro-West when it comes to Taiwan’s “foreign policy,” and the US should be careful to maintain a balance in taking advantage of the Party’s opposition to Beijing.

You have to be more specific.

KMT's near-term goal is to return to the 1992 Consensus which has worked well for both sides of the Strait. Keep in mind that KMT is basically all the "old" money, and corporate heavyweights like Foxconn. They understand that there are very significant synergies and benefits to keeping relations between Taiwan and PRC friendly. When Taiwan did not feel threatened (late 90s, early 00s), the commercial ties between the two yielded enormous economic output.

Yes, a DPP win will mean more of the escalations we’ve seen, with Beijing using Taipei’s “provocations” to practice for and assert military control of areas around Taiwan. A crescendo in this tit for tat increases opportunities for misunderstanding and miscalculation on both sides. This environment coincides with a steep and prolonged slowdown in Chinese economic growth and growing domestic instability. It could make the PRC more sensitive to perceived external threats or challenges to its authority and interests, with less to lose by resorting to military force in defense of those interests.

Beijing maintains escalation dominance. We've already seen how the Pelosi stunt has changed PRC's behavior in regards to Taiwan's ADIZ, with violations becoming the "new normal." It's quite obvious that Beijing will ratchet up the pressure if a DPP victory emboldens Taiwan or United States to do something particularly stupid. There are red lines and in my opinion, China will act in an extreme manner if those red lines are broken.

[/quote]The PRC would see it as a win, and a blow to the US. They’d probably be right. It may or may not reduce cross-strait tensions, depending on how much distance the KMT subsequently would push for between Taipei and Washington. Even if the KMT were to push for closer ties with Beijing, I think what happened to Hong Kong precludes the former from making meaningful strides toward “one country two systems,” especially because their hold on power would be tenuous.[/quote]

You're being too Bear-ish here, in my opinion. A KMT win will almost certainly start a cooling-off period for cross-strait relations. Just go to the wiki page, until 2016, both Xi and the KMT President of Taiwan literally shook hands and were actively building economic and cultural ties across the Strait. The loser here would be United States, it would be a significant set-back for US strategy in the Pacific.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You have to be more specific.

KMT's near-term goal is to return to the 1992 Consensus which has worked well for both sides of the Strait. Keep in mind that KMT is basically all the "old" money, and corporate heavyweights like Foxconn. They understand that there are very significant synergies and benefits to keeping relations between Taiwan and PRC friendly. When Taiwan did not feel threatened (late 90s, early 00s), the commercial ties between the two yielded enormous economic output.

In terms of specifics, I think if the 1992 Consensus was an actual consensus between the KMT and CCP, the latter might not have accused the former of violating it shortly thereafter in the third strait crisis. I agree re-committing to it is a sound strategy to de-escalate tensions in a departure from the DPP’s secessionism, but I think the significance of One China across the strait has always been defined by differences in interpretation rather than whether or not to accept it at all. Cross strait tensions over Taiwan’s status would persist and I don’t know that a KMT victory would indefinitely postpone any plans the Politburo has to assert control over the island by some measure of force. The DPP’s stance is inherently extreme, yet they are likely to come out ahead in the election.

You're being too Bear-ish here, in my opinion. A KMT win will almost certainly start a cooling-off period for cross-strait relations. Just go to the wiki page, until 2016, both Xi and the KMT President of Taiwan literally shook hands and were actively building economic and cultural ties across the Strait. The loser here would be United States, it would be a significant set-back for US strategy in the Pacific.

The KMT candidate publicly ruled out reunification talks, the ultimate success of which Xi appears to have staked his legacy. I think KMT opposition to US China hawks would be a blow to that lobby, but the status quo is a best case scenario for US interests anyway. The status quo is preferable to war, unless our military were guaranteed to decisively defeat the PLA in any scenario, like they were during the 90s crisis. But war might be preferable to reunification anyway. Whether by political agreement or military victory, turning Taiwan into a PLAN base would be a disaster for US allies in the region and a Suez moment for US foreign policy and geopolitics. The consequences would be roughly equivalent to a catastrophic military defeat, even if one didn’t actually occur.

[conon394]

You're being too Bear-ish here, in my opinion. A KMT win will almost certainly start a cooling-off period for cross-strait relations. Just go to the wiki page, until 2016, both Xi and the KMT President of Taiwan literally shook hands and were actively building economic and cultural ties across the Strait. The loser here would be United States, it would be a significant set-back for US strategy in the Pacific.

It would appear the KMT won't be doing any cooling off.

I bet y'all can't even describe what actually happened in Hong Kong for me with any semblance of accuracy.

Do than provide your illuminating insights that are certainly better than all ours

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The based people of Taiwan voted against the CCP's wishes. the CCP.

[Love Mountain]

In terms of specifics, I think if the 1992 Consensus was an actual consensus between the KMT and CCP, the latter might not have accused the former of violating it shortly thereafter in the third strait crisis. I agree re-committing to it is a sound strategy to de-escalate tensions in a departure from the DPP’s secessionism, but I think the significance of One China across the strait has always been defined by differences in interpretation rather than whether or not to accept it at all. Cross strait tensions over Taiwan’s status would persist and I don’t know that a KMT victory would indefinitely postpone any plans the Politburo has to assert control over the island by some measure of force. The DPP’s stance is inherently extreme, yet they are likely to come out ahead in the election.

So, "consensus between KMT and CCP" would be akin to saying that the JCPOA was between Iran and Obama as opposed to between Iran and United States. Sure, you can frame it that way, but the reality is that the 1992 Consensus was a political arrangement reached between the representative of Taiwan and the representative of China. In regards to "One China". I'm not really sure what you're referring to specifically, but the 1992 Consensus is essentially an agreement to agree to disagree on what what "One China" really means, and focus on other political dialogue.

DPP has always been extreme on cross-strait relations. Their goals is almost explicitly independence and their victory today is not a good thing for political stability.

The KMT candidate publicly ruled out reunification talks, the ultimate success of which Xi appears to have staked his legacy. I think KMT opposition to US China hawks would be a blow to that lobby, but the status quo is a best case scenario for US interests anyway. The status quo is preferable to war, unless our military were guaranteed to decisively defeat the PLA in any scenario, like they were during the 90s crisis. But war might be preferable to reunification anyway. Whether by political agreement or military victory, turning Taiwan into a PLAN base would be a disaster for US allies in the region and a Suez moment for US foreign policy and geopolitics. The consequences would be roughly equivalent to a catastrophic military defeat, even if one didn’t actually occur.

I agree. A detente is a good thing for all parties. Taiwan wins, China wins, and most importantly, United States wins. Unfortunately, KMT did not win, and we will see whether DPP can prevent further escalation in the next 4 years.

Do than provide your illuminating insights that are certainly better than all ours

A sovereign country passed a law further confirming its authority over a region of its country. Said region got upset and started "pro-democracy" protests.

In a truly idiotic move, 30 Western-aligned countries condemned China for doing what literally every other sovereign country does, which is retain the authority to arrest people, and administer areas that they suspect of being spies or national security risks.

[conon394]

A sovereign country passed a law further confirming its authority over a region of its country. Said region got upset and started "pro-democracy" protests.

In a truly idiotic move, 30 Western-aligned countries condemned China for doing what literally every other sovereign country does, which is retain the authority to arrest people, and administer areas that they suspect of being spies or national security risks.

Well it violate an agreement on autonomy for said region that was supposed to last for what some additional 25 years. Clear I sure a great bit of advertising to convince what is now far more democratic Taiwan that they are in fact Chinese and what to back authoritarian rule.

[Love Mountain]

Well it violate an agreement on autonomy for said region that was supposed to last for what some additional 25 years. Clear I sure a great bit of advertising to convince what is now far more democratic Taiwan that they are in fact Chinese and what to back authoritarian rule.

Autonomy does not mean independence.

Hong-Kong still maintains self-governance, in fact, it even continues to have elections. But just to make my position on this issue very clear;

Do I think that Hong-Kong activists have legitimate grievances with Beijing? Yes.

Do I think that Beijing has the right to enforce national security laws in Hong Kong, to influence their government, and to jail separatists? Also yes.

Do I think that Western countries are criticizing Beijing in good faith? Absolutely not.

======================================================

Matter of fact, corruption, separatism, and lawlessness in Hong Kong has been tolerated for a long-time due to Hong-Kong's importance to the Chinese economy. That importance has been drastically reduced in the last 20-30 years. Whereas before, capital outflows, money laundering, and all other sorts of white collar and black market crime has been tolerated (even encouraged); Beijing has now reached a point where they are no longer reliant on Hong Kong as the only major trade port, highly developed city, and producer of human capital. Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzen, Chongqing, and so on are all bigger and more powerful than Hong Kong. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to crack down on Hong-Kong, a place that has allowed many Chinese elites to siphon money out of the country into safe havens, a place that is an absolute festering ground for foreign agents and international spies, and ultimately a place that resents Beijing despite being incredibly reliant on it for on-going economic prosperity.

This loss of status and importance coincides naturally with Beijing treating Hong Kong as they would treat any other Chinese city. Of course, I understand how the people of Hong-Kong might resent that loss of privilege and freedom, but it is perfectly fair and natural for a country to enforce its laws.

Native American reservations are still bound by Federal Laws and I am highly skeptical that anyone will raise a big fuss over Washington enforcing the Espionage Act on Indian land. Certainly, Rishi Sunak won't be making a Reuters headline criticizing Biden, that's for sure.

[conon394]

Native American reservations are still bound by Federal Laws and I am highly skeptical that anyone will raise a big fuss over Washington enforcing the Espionage Act on Indian land. Certainly, Rishi Sunak won't be making a Reuters headline criticizing Biden, that's for sure.

Interesting choice... Russell Means is a free man unlike this lot are likely to be

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/...security-trial

Not clear to me they have done anything that would violate the US espionage act.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Autonomy does not mean independence.

Hong-Kong still maintains self-governance, in fact, it even continues to have elections. But just to make my position on this issue very clear;

And look at that, all the parties are part of the pro-Beijing alliance. After the last elections (2019) were the biggest landslide victory for the pro-Democracy alliance, where pro-Beijing candidates got absolutely crushed. Such democracy. What's the next line of argumentation? North Korea has democracy since it has elections?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Lord Thesaurian]

So, "consensus between KMT and CCP" would be akin to saying that the JCPOA was between Iran and Obama as opposed to between Iran and United States. Sure, you can frame it that way, but the reality is that the 1992 Consensus was a political arrangement reached between the representative of Taiwan and the representative of China.

In regards to "One China". I'm not really sure what you're referring to specifically, but the 1992 Consensus is essentially an agreement to agree to disagree on what what "One China" really means, and focus on other political dialogue.

I don’t mean to suggest the agreement was illegitimate, only that the same Taiwanese KMT president that oversaw the democratic transition and the consensus was the same one PRC state media called a traitor and secessionist, with Beijing firing off warning missiles North Korea style a few years after “agreeing to disagree.”

There will always be cross strait tensions unless Beijing accepts Taipei’s definition of One China or vice versa. The last KMT president, who famously met Xi, affirmed the status quo as the basis of his position on cross strait relations: “no reunification, no independence, and no war.” This is also the US’ position, which Biden reaffirmed this week. Obviously, that’s not how the PRC conceptualizes One China or cross strait relations, and Xi does not agree to disagree.

[Love Mountain]

And look at that, all the parties are part of the pro-Beijing alliance. After the last elections (2019) were the biggest landslide victory for the pro-Democracy alliance, where pro-Beijing candidates got absolutely crushed. Such democracy. What's the next line of argumentation? North Korea has democracy since it has elections?

I wonder why people who participated in anti-government demonstrations, got banned from participating in the government. Reminds me of something.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I wonder why people who participated in anti-government demonstrations, got banned from participating in the government. Reminds me of something.

And now there's not a single party that's not pro-Beijing, even though the majority of the population is against it! that's how democracy works, right? Of the people (in Beijing), by the people (in Beijing), for the people (of Beijing).

[Love Mountain]

And now there's not a single party that's not pro-Beijing, even though the majority of the population is against it! that's how democracy works, right? Of the people (in Beijing), by the people (in Beijing), for the people (of Beijing).

Funny, I don't se any anti-America parties in America either.

[conon394]

Funny, I don't se any anti-America parties in America either.

The Puerto Rican Independence Party would beg to have words. And the Nation of Islam... There are smaller less important independence parties in most other US territories. And Texas has a surprisingly large and organized independence party - its actually finally maybe getting close to getting a non biding separatist resolution on a referendum.

[Love Mountain]

The Puerto Rican Independence Party would beg to have words. And the Nation of Islam... There are smaller less important independence parties in most other US territories. And Texas has a surprisingly large and organized independence party - its actually finally maybe getting close to getting a non biding separatist resolution on a referendum.

And how many seats do they have?