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.