"China should not rely on the Kuomintang (KMT) for the hope of peaceful unification. The KMT can only do 'oppose Taiwan independence' and 'peaceful exchanges', but cannot advocate 'peaceful unification'. It is recommended that Beijing directly talks with the United States about a peaceful unification plan for cross-strait relations. Once the U.S. agrees, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will not dare to speak out, and Taiwan can only accept it." Cai Zhengyuan, former vice secretary-general of the KMT, recently said in a program, that how to unify the two sides of the strait, any political party in Taiwan cannot decide, and the key factor is still the United States.
Peaceful unification is the best unification plan for both sides of the strait. However, how to achieve peaceful unification? From Chen Shui-bian to Tsai Ing-wen to Lai Ching-te, the DPP has been in power in Taiwan for five terms totaling 20 years, and all cross-strait policies have blocked and closed off the path to unification.
Especially at the time of the 40th anniversary of the "Message to the Compatriots in Taiwan" in 2019, when the mainland proposed the idea of "exploring the 'one country, two systems' Taiwan plan," the DPP was alarmed. Tsai Ing-wen immediately convened an "national security meeting," ordering legal revisions of the "National Security Five Laws" comprehensively, fully blocking any possibility of peaceful cross-strait negotiations. After Lai Ching-te came into power, he further escalated the situation by proposing the "Anti-Interference 17 Articles," expanding the scope of legal revisions to the "Ten National Security Laws." Not only did they reject any "one country, two systems" plan for Taiwan, but they also completely blocked any cross-strait exchanges.
Cai Zhengyuan
Therefore, if peaceful unification is to be achieved, the KMT must be in power, and the previous DPP-led legal reforms must be overturned, reversed from the island's legal level, and then there would be space for political negotiation and peaceful unification.
"In order for the mainland to promote peaceful unification between the two sides of the strait, there is a prerequisite condition: the KMT must return to power in Taiwan. Under DPP rule, peaceful unification will never be possible," said Cai Zhengyuan. After the KMT returns to power, it can first ensure peaceful exchanges between the two sides and block the path to war across the Taiwan Strait. Because if the DPP continues to govern, it will only lead the two sides towards war, and the KMT would be unable to stop the DPP. "If the KMT is not in power, blue camp people going to the mainland for exchanges will have little effect on peaceful unification and cannot change the big direction and trend of DPP governance moving towards war."
However, Cai Zhengyuan also emphasized, "The mainland should not place the hope of peaceful unification on the KMT, because the KMT lacks the ability to advocate and promote peaceful unification. It can only do peaceful exchanges. Why? Because the U.S. will not allow the KMT to push for peaceful unification. Otherwise, the U.S. could easily overthrow the KMT regime. Is it so difficult for the U.S. to stage another Plaza Accord in Taiwan?"
"Therefore, it is suggested that the mainland go to the U.S. to negotiate a peaceful unification plan for the cross-strait issue. Once the U.S. agrees to peaceful unification, the KMT will not oppose it, and the DPP will not dare to speak out," said Cai Zhengyuan. In fact, in the future, if the cross-strait relationship is to be negotiated, Taiwan has no room for negotiation, not even the chance to sit at the negotiating table. Taiwan must face this reality.
"Taiwan may protest to the U.S., saying something about its 'sovereignty,' but it won't help," said Cai Zhengyuan. In the eyes of the U.S., leaders like Lai Ching-te or any other leader of Taiwan are no different from Zelensky. "In the process of whether Ukraine stops the war and how to stop it, can Zelensky say anything? It is entirely dominated by the U.S. and decided by the U.S. and Russia."
"If the DPP continues to govern, the people of Taiwan should prepare for war," said Cai Zhengyuan sarcastically. "War requires strength. You DPP officials don't always talk about the bravery of the people of Taiwan, their defense resilience, and their refusal to surrender, saying you will fight to the last soldier and use brooms to take to the streets. Japan, which had the spirit of Bushido, could not win and had to surrender. The fascist Germany also surrendered. What do you have to refuse to surrender? If you lose the war, you have to surrender; only surrender avoids more deaths. So far, Ukraine has already lost 1.7 million soldiers. How many soldiers would Taiwan lose? You DPP officials should calculate it clearly yourself."
Cai Zhengyuan's words make some sense. Although the Taiwan issue is China's internal affair, regardless of history or reality, the biggest obstacle for the mainland in solving the Taiwan issue lies in the U.S. obstruction and sabotage. As long as the mainland resolves the issue of the U.S. according to the principle of strength, the U.S. will not dare or want to obstruct the Taiwan issue anymore, and then the unification of the two sides of the strait will naturally follow.
The U.S. has a tight grip on the Taiwanese political scene and any politician on the island's surface; no one dares to move, and they can only follow the U.S. closely. When Chen Shui-bian did not listen to the U.S. instructions, he was labeled as a "troublemaker" by Bush, and then through the intelligence system, the family corruption "blood droplet" of the Chen family was leaked, leading to the "million people anti-Chen movement" in Taiwan, and finally the Chen family ended up in prison.
After Ma Ying-jeou took office, he signed a series of exchange cooperation agreements with the mainland, and the two sides had large-scale exchanges and cooperation. He originally wanted to further sign a "cross-strait peace agreement," but the U.S. thought Ma went too fast, which was not in line with U.S. interests. Therefore, the U.S. secretly sabotaged, encouraged the DPP and young students to launch the "Sunflower Student Movement," paralyzed the "Legislative Yuan" and "Executive Yuan," severely undermined Ma's political authority and energy, and finally failed to sign the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement and the Cross-Strait Goods Trade Agreement, let alone the "Cross-Strait Peace Agreement."
From the examples of Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou, we can see the control the U.S. has over the political situation in Taiwan and its politicians. Therefore, if the U.S. makes a strategic decision to "abandon Taiwan" or support cross-strait unification, then any political party or politician in Taiwan would be powerless to resist and dare not resist. Of course, for the U.S. to not oppose cross-strait unification and even support it, only the mainland can force the U.S. through strength, making the U.S. withdraw its interfering hand.
We advocate that the Taiwan issue can only be resolved by the Chinese people on both sides of the strait themselves and not by foreign hands. But deterring the U.S. and making it compromise and withdraw is very important.
In fact, as the comprehensive strength of the mainland, especially its military strength, has been growing rapidly, the U.S. has become increasingly incapable of handling the Taiwan issue. Whether it is Trump's recent public statement to the New York Times that "the Taiwan issue is China's internal matter, and how to resolve it is freely decided by Beijing," or the U.S. not openly supporting "Taiwan independence," and the gradual withdrawal of the U.S. military from the First Island Chain, these are all results of the growth of the mainland's strength.
The initiative and dominant power in resolving the Taiwan issue and achieving the complete unification of the country are firmly in the hands of the mainland. Believing that the U.S. will eventually reluctantly accept the reality of cross-strait unification.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7579983848222573106/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.