From whence did this love fest first start? Was it in 2000 when the KMT lost control of the Presidential office?
How could they go from hating the Communists to being in love with them.
Why do they feel closer or at least treat better the CCP members than Taiwan’s own DPP party.
Finally, could someone explain why it seems as if they would actually prefer to be united now with the CPP than to be the opposition party in Taiwan?
By the way, this was brought on by Soong’s impending second trip to China and second meeting with China’s President Hu. I am really starting to get worried that if the Pan-Blues ever control the country again, they will really try to unite Democratic Taiwan with Communist China.
I think that the CCP really is the new KMT. They are just better at controlling the masses than KMT was, they have a much better grip on the military than KMT did, and they are better at keeping the goose alive than KMT was.
Seriously, in terms of ideology, where does the CCP now differ from the KMT of the '40s? They are just as greedy, just as corrupt, and just as willing to embrace violence to hold onto power having lost the mandate of the people. They both had the habit of blaming Japan for all their problems. The only real difference is that KMT went to great lengths to put on a show of running a democratic country, and CCP doesn’t see any need to bother with the charade.
Yeah, this is a question that used to puzzle me. How can the KMT go form being the arch-enemies of the CCP, wanting to drive them from the Mainland, to cozying up to them and wanting to ‘reunify’?
The answer is just that the KMT has always seem themselves, and Taiwan as Chinese. They want to be part of China, and if they can’t do so as the masters, doing so as the slaves is the next best thing.
[quote=“belgian pie”]
Why doesn’t the old KMT guard that holds on to repossesing China just go and move to China, so much more space over there and money to be made. [/quote]Good question, one which never seems to get a straight answer from that camp. Instead, they offer us such platitudes as:
We want to share the opportunities with all Taiwanese (even though everything we’ve ever done shows us to be lying, greedy, selfish pigs).
Only if Taiwan is included, can China be truly great again. Our responsibility to Greater China has to surpass our loyalty to Taiwan. (:loco:)
In truth I think they either want to go, but figure they can buy a better place there if they can deliver Taiwan up to their new masters. Or, they want it both ways, make the money there, but live in comfortable convenient Taiwan. Or, they know full they will never regain power via the ballot box and figure if they sell Taiwan out to the CCP, they’ll get the job of governing the colony in perpetuity. If that doesn’t work out, being filthy stinking rich and retiring on Long Island is an acceptable alternative.
[quote=“hsiadogah”]
In truth I think they either want to go, but figure they can buy a better place there if they can deliver Taiwan up to their new masters. Or, they want it both ways, make the money there, but live in comfortable convenient Taiwan. Or, they know full they will never regain power via the ballot box and figure if they sell Taiwan out to the CCP, they’ll get the job of governing the colony in perpetuity. If that doesn’t work out, being filthy stinking rich and retiring on Long Island is an acceptable alternative.[/quote]
That seems to describe just about every openly pro-unification blue I know.
The highly Christian influenced KMT have always subscribed to the adage, hate the sin, not the sinner.
[quote=“Hobart”]
Why do they feel closer or at least treat better the CCP members than Taiwan’s own DPP party.[/quote]
Typically there is less of an irrational response from the CCP.
[quote=“Hobart”]
Finally, could someone explain why it seems as if they would actually prefer to be united now with the CPP than to be the opposition party in Taiwan?[/quote]
Maybe they would prefer to be the leaders of the opposition party of the whole country instead of the opposition leaders of a single province.
[quote=“Hobart”]
By the way, this was brought on by Soong’s impending second trip to China and second meeting with China’s President Hu. I am really starting to get worried that if the Pan-Blues ever control the country again, they will really try to unite Democratic Taiwan with Communist China.
Help me to understand please.[/quote]
That would be consistent with the principles of the party.
KMT/CCP/DDP relatoins are complex to say the least because they involve different levels of interaction. On a personal level, the KMT and the CCP members have similarly identified with a nation called China. Thier quarrel lies in the definition of the nation. The PRC has always proclaimed itself to be the sole legitimate government representing this one and only China. The KMT before 1990s held the same view except if the moniker of the PRC is replaced by the ROC. In the 1990s, the KMT redefined China as a cultural and historical entity and for the moment the nation of China is divided, separately governed by two governments. This proposition later evolved into the two-state theory in 1999 much to the DPP’s liking and CCP’s distaste.
Since the basic belief in a Chinese nation between the KMT and the CCP is still the same, the conflict of definition was neatly covered by the 92 consensus. The DPP has thus far denied any consensus due to the fact that the party does not share the identity of a common Chinese nation. Why KMT seems closer to CCP than DDP, according to William Bloom in Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relatoins (1990, Cambridge Univrsity Press), identity is a primary need, meaning any threat to a person’s identity will be perceived by the person as a threat to his or her vurvival. In a plural society, personal identities are constatnly challenged by other identities and social forces. To avoid the feeling of being threatened, people of the same identity tend to united togetoer to defend and expand their identity. I think identity theory explains very well the odd and irrational interactoins among KMT, CCP and DDP. Isn’t the KMT striving together with the CCP to protect and expand the Chinese identity at a time when this identity is exactly in danger in Taiwan? This cooperation or united front is therefore contingent on continued supressing of Chinese minority identity in the ROC. When this precondition dispears, such as when KMT was in power or regain power in 2008, the KMT wuld probably share more of DPP’s anomisity toward the CCP.
Other levels of analysis also have strong bearings on cross-strait relations. For example, inspired by Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (2003, Verso), there emerged a nationalist turn of Taiwan’s democratisation in the 1990s. The hypothesis is that nations are imagined constructed communities. There is no need for a long historical background and cultural affinities for a nation to exist. As long as the populatoin are willing to see themself as one people of a nation. Mission accomplished. A nation is born with or without international recognisation. Building a Taiwanese identiy and nationality is fine as long as it focuses on the development of its subjectivity essentials. However, a lot efforts to nationalise TAiwan has been based on the decinification of Chinese identity and symbols and historical interpretations. This confronts directly with the blue identity and belief system. In the same way the KMT helped the rise of TAiwanese consciousness by suppressing anything Taiwanese, the greens are also helping the blues to unite around their identiy to protect it, with the help of the CCP if necessary.
What about international reality? This is becoming more interesting. As long as the international structure continues to hold on to the one China framework, i.e. neither the American led West nor the up-coming Chiense challenger can outstrip the other with overwhelming power to induce a restructuring of this framework, the balance tends to favour status quo. I have same doubt about DPP’s ability to break this structural limit and declare indepedence as KMT’s prowess to bring democratic Taiwan and commuist China together because the One China internatinoal framework is rhetorical rather than material. No indepedence and no unification is the catchword nowadays. Just relax and watch the show. After all, it’s really not about indepedence or unification at all, it’s the 2008 presidential elections that is making everyone busy.
[quote=“Hobart”]How could they go from hating the Communists to being in love with them.
Why do they feel closer or at least treat better the CCP members than Taiwan’s own DPP party.
Finally, could someone explain why it seems as if they would actually prefer to be united now with the CPP than to be the opposition party in Taiwan?[/quote]
Democracy seems to be difficult. They’re not the only ones. Remember Sisy Chen, Shih Ming-teh and Hsu Hsin-liang who all did a fairly rapid 180 degree-turn from strong Taiwan independence to supporting the PFP and unification a few years back. Two former DPP party leaders, one of whom spent years and years on Green Island as a political prisoner during the KMT era for his pro-independence stance, while the other was exiled for almost a decade for the same reasons. Sisy Chen, well, she is just a populist who’ll say anything to remain center stage…
The KMT and CCP were in bed from the very beginning. SYS had the Soviets send advisors to help organize the party organization as well as train the military.
Communists Chou En-lai and Ye Jianying were amoung the instructors. Communist generals who were gaduates include Lin Piao and Peng De-Hwai. KMT general Hau Pei-tsun’s brother allegedly also served a general…under the Communists.
Of course pan-Green supporters don’t live in the USA or do business in PRC…
Those generalizations miss the mark completely.
The reality is that on the subject of military assistance pan-Blue supporters don’t view Japan or the USA to have unwavering support for the ROC. Thus they take a completely different stance on how to deal with PRC. Pan-Green supporters who usually believe these two countries have 100% support behind the concept of ROT are also the most vocal about entering a possible war with PRC, as if they controlled the military forces in those other countries.
In addition, as Taropotato pointed out, there is also an entire layer of an identity issue being played out on Taiwan. Of course pan-Blue that embrace their Chinese identity have more affinity with their mainlander compatriots, than the pan-Green who are busy soliciting college graduate students to create a neo-Taiwan identity.
They don’t sell out their country either, making your comparision moot.
I find them more or less on the mark. I have met people like that veyr often - all with a mainland chinese background.
No-one is talking about war here, except for the blues, who prefer to use it as a scare tactiv. Too bad they have been off the mark so far. It would be horrible realpolitik for the US not to support Taiwan in case of a war, the same with Japan. The issue has been covered very well elsewhere on the board.
The Taiwanese identity has been created over the last 100+ years. It’s not fake, merely resurfacing in the wake of the democratization of Taiwan.
… And AC, how long time does it take to get from CKS airport to Xinzhu when traffic’s good?
You mean like Hsu Wen-lung (許文龍). pan-Greens have shown they are willing to sell out their country to USA or Japan for paltry favors as well.
That’s 98% of the people on Taiwan. They all came from the mainland at one point or another. Even the Japanese came from the mainland.
It was the KMT that brought with it the USA alliance onto Taiwan. I think they know from first hand experience what happens when USA pulled its support during the Chinese civil war. The pan-Greens have barely a clue how to work with the USA on foriegn policy. The last great achievement of a pan-Green leader got a missile launched at Taiwan.
So unless one ignores the ASL, there will be “non-peaceful” resolution if Taiwan Independence supporters and their leadership don’t get with the program.
If the Taiwanese identity is so obvious. Why is the MOE having such a hard time figuring out how to teach it?
Why are the aboriginals so hard to fit into this neo-Taiwan identity.
I usually don’t go to Windows on the World right after getting off the plane. Do you?
You mean like Hsu Wen-lung (許文龍). pan-Greens have shown they are willing to sell out their country to USA or Japan for paltry favors as well.[/quote]
Uh huh. Anyway, the pan blues are famous for it.
That’s 98% of the people on Taiwan. They all came from the mainland at one point or another. Even the Japanese came from the mainland.[/quote]
14% of the population of Taiwan came from China along with the KMT. Of course since the Japanese came from China is that a future prerequisite to demand unification? Since we are going that far back in history, which country in Africa owns you?
It was the KMT that brought with it the USA alliance onto Taiwan. I think they know from first hand experience what happens when USA pulled its support during the Chinese civil war. The pan-Greens have barely a clue how to work with the USA on foreign policy. The last great achievement of a pan-Green leader got a missile launched at Taiwan.
So unless one ignores the ASL, there will be “non-peaceful” resolution if Taiwan Independence supporters and their leadership don’t get with the program.[/quote]
Uh huh, this is why more US politicians openly support Taiwan, and 33 recently have written a complaint to Lien and Ma that they should rally their support of the arms bill. Furthermore the KMT has US support in the past was because the US saw the KMT as a counter to Chinese communism. When the KMT refused to share a seat with their former subjects, they effectively kicked themselves out of the UN. All that hardly sounds like political saavy.
If the Taiwanese identity is so obvious. Why is the MOE having such a hard time figuring out how to teach it?
Why are the aboriginals so hard to fit into this neo-Taiwan identity.[/quote]
Its not difficult on figuring out how to teach it, the problem is there are people within the MOE who want to perpetuate the old KMT doctrine.
I usually don’t go to Windows on the World right after getting off the plane. Do you?[/quote]
You’re a supreme ass for making a joke out 9/11 when I had friends that died there. Practically all the chefs and employees at Windows of the World restaurant never made it out and you make a stupid crack out of it. If anything this proves that you are an inhuman bastard for having the gall to make such an idiotic comment. Dead people are funny to you? Gosh why-ever did the Admins here un-ban you.
Shrimpcrackers, you’re making a dick out of yourself.
AC wasn’t talking about anything vaguely to do with 911, so enough with the insults.
And here’s a reminder everybody. This topic is about why the KMT and CCP are so close. Talk about Taiwanese identity and stuff elsewhere, and stop fishing to see if AC has actually ever set foot in this country.
[/quote]Good question, one which never seems to get a straight answer from that camp. Instead, they offer us such platitudes as: