What Chu Has Up His Sleeve
China Times Editorial, June 10, 2022
Chairman Eric Chu of the Kuomintang (KMT) has just concluded his visit to the United States. While in the United States, Chu met with Senior Director for China Laura Rosenberger of the National Security Council, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink, Representative Steve Chabot who co-chairs the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, and four other members of Congress, and attended a plaque unveiling ceremony to mark the reopening of the KMT’s representative office in the United States, attended by Dan Biers, director of the Office of Taiwan Coordination at the Department of State. The theme of “pro-American” and “anti-Communist” emerged from Chu’s remarks in the United States. Has received considerable discussions and mixed reviews at home. Chu is successful in his goal to establish the KMT’s new image as “a force of democracy, freedom and peace”, but is this goal strategically correct? For the interests of the KMT and Taiwan, should KMT pose itself as “pro-American” and “anti-Communist?”
Value of 1992 Consensus Undeniable
Before departing for the United States, Chairman Chu signaled his purpose of visit was to change the misconception of the KMT being “pro-China” and anti-American” and set the KMT’s moderate approach towards 2024 presidential elections. While in the United States, Chu did send 4 clear messages in his public remarks: pro-American, anti-Communist, the 1992 Consensus being a consensus without consensus, and support for asymmetrical warfare arms purchase. Not only that, Chu had called up former Premier Chang San-cheng to run for mayor of Taoyuan before his departure, thus cutting off the “Fighting Blue” faction within the party. After the external announcement of “pro-American” and “anti-Communist” stance, Chu has basically completed his layout for 2024 elections.
Chairman Chu’s refusal to nominate former Taipei City Councilor Lo Chih-chiang to run for Taoyuan mayor has caused a political storm. The above four messages Chu gave out in the United States also trigger heated controversy. First, “pro-U.S.” is strange to the KMT because the KMT has been pro-U.S. throughout the century-long history except for a brief period of pro-Soviet. Chu is pro-U.S. personally, so is it really necessary to emphasize the stance in the United States? Chu’s emphasis on “pro-U.S.” is in reality an emphasis of “not pro-China”. To make sure the message is strong enough, Chu even used “anti-Communist” to underline his point. But is China still practicing Communism today? If China is practicing “socialism with Chinese characteristics” rather than outright Communism, is Chu then fighting against something that no longer exists?
The denial of the 1992 Consensus has caused a larger controversy. Taiwan Affairs Office of the mainland’s State Council immediately issued a statement to stress that “the 1992 Consensus is as clear as black and white”. However, this statement is not entirely correct because the content of the 1992 Consensus is in dispute. Nevertheless, under the political foundation created by the 1992 Consensus both the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party maintained an eight-year period of peace and development. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed between Taipei and Beijing continues to sustain the close economic ties across the Taiwan Strait, giving Taiwan robust momentum in exports and economic growth. Chu can question mainland China for altering the definition of the 1992 Consensus, but he cannot deny its value.
Two Strategic Red Lines Untouchable
While arms sales is a critical facet of U.S.-Taiwan relations, Chairman Chu should not have accepted the “asymmetric warfare” strategy mapped out by the United States entirely. The KMT needs to look after this chain in order to strengthen its relations with the United States. But “asymmetrical warfare” is a concept about urban warfare and scorched-earth policy. In other words, the United States deems Taiwan’s Air Force and Navy unable to “resist enemy from outside its territory”, so there is no need to spend defense budget on jet fighters or naval ships. Instead, Taiwan’s defense should focus on anti-landing and urban warfare after landing. The United States not only urge Taiwan to prepare for urban warfare, some even suggested to make preparation to self-destruct Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). It is the same as asking Taiwan to commit suicide.
Some criticized Chairman Chu’s promotion of “pro-U.S. and anti-Communist” is “light green,” which is not fair. During the National Party Congress of the KMT in October 2021, Chu did not agree to change the name of KMT to “Taiwan KMT”, he also keep Article 2 of the party’s charter intact, which includes clauses like “oppose separatism, and champion the interests of the Chinese nation.” Further, Chu’s speech in the United States was consistent with his long-standing position and in line with the Constitution of the Republic of China, which includes clauses like “both Taiwan and the mainland belong to one China and it is called the Republic of China.” Chu has not changed the KMT’s basic political stand and position, “the-middle-of-the-road approach” he took is for the layout of the elections in 2024.
Tactically Chairman Chu did not make any mistake. However, strategically Chu has made two mistakes. First, he is overly pro-American. The United States, like any other country, is seeking its own national interests. In 1979 the United States fully accepted Communist China’s terms of normalization including “severance of diplomatic ties, withdrawal of troops and termination of mutual defense treaty” and abandoned Taiwan callously. In retrospect of the two hundred some years of relations between China and the United States, every three to 50 years there would be a paradigm shift, in which cooperation was switched to confrontation. If Taiwan is following the strategic interests of the United States and sees itself as an American colony, then how can it survive if abandoned by the United States once again?
The second mistake is that Chu failed to grasp the limits of cross-strait relations. The KMT can oppose mainland China’s policy, yet the connection cannot be severed, nor can the KMT abandon the party spirit to revitalize the Chinese nation. It is very important that cross-strait policy can never be contingent upon U.S.-Taiwan relations.
Chu has a reputation for “political actuary.” Careful calculation may help him achieve tactical success, but if Chu wants to be a political leader, he has to have correct view of strategy.
From: https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20220610004258-262101?chdtv