朱立倫回覆習賀電 外媒評論「勾結敵人」

超荒謬!朱立倫回覆中共賀電 外媒記者長文砲轟「勾結敵人」

印度記者魯德羅內爾.戈什認為,準黨主席朱立倫回覆中共賀電,並將兩岸緊張局勢歸咎給民進黨,是「徹頭徹尾的荒謬」,能被視為「與敵人勾結」。(資料照)

印度記者魯德羅內爾.戈什認為,準黨主席朱立倫回覆中共賀電,並將兩岸緊張局勢歸咎給民進黨,是「徹頭徹尾的荒謬」,能被視為「與敵人勾結」。(資料照)

 

〔即時新聞/綜合報導〕《印度時報》記者魯德羅內爾.戈什(Rudroneel Ghosh)30日針對國民黨主席選舉發表評論,他認為,準黨主席朱立倫回覆中共賀電,並將兩岸緊張局勢歸咎給民進黨,是「徹頭徹尾的荒謬」,能被視為「與敵人勾結」。

戈什表示,朱立倫並非首次當選國民黨主席,但此次他立刻為自己挖了1個坑,中共寄來的賀電中強調恢復台海和平、反對台獨、爭取和平、謀求統一,此時,任何稱職的政治家都應該嗅到陷阱,朱立倫卻沒有無視這封信,還給予回覆,將兩岸緊張局勢歸咎於民進黨,表態反對台獨,還宣稱若以九二共識為基礎,國民黨能與中國「求同尊異」。

戈什指出,朱立倫的舉動不僅是徹頭徹尾的荒謬,而且無異於政治自殺,目前中國不時對台灣進行軍事威脅,朱立倫收到且認同中國領導人的賀電,能被視為「與敵人勾結」,在民主國家,政黨領袖接受敵國元首的賀電是相當荒唐的,再者,朱立倫表態反台獨,已經說明他就是「親統派」,隨然朱有可能會以「九二共識」加以解釋,但這根本不重要。

戈什認為,「九二共識」對中國而言只會被用來強調「一個中國」,不可能給國民黨有其他解釋空間,且台灣2014年太陽花學運、2019年支持香港反送中,都一再顯示中國的「一國兩制」受到台灣人廣泛拒絕,國民黨也因此輸掉2020年總統大選,朱立倫為何犯下這種政治錯誤,唯一的解釋是,朱立倫是在黨內「親統老衛兵」的幫助下當選主席,因此回覆中共賀電。

戈什強調,但朱立倫的舉動仍是錯誤的,因為台灣青年都想維護民主與獨立地位,而這也引出了1個問題,習近平明知「發賀電」會給國民黨不良影響,為何還要這麼做?或許習近平並不關心國民黨的命運,習近平知道大多數台灣人反對統一,這樣有利中共煽動中國民族主義,這也是為何要定期派出軍機、軍艦威脅台灣。

戈什認為,未來會有愈來愈多台灣人疏遠中國,而台灣也可能成為習近平鞏固黨內權力、促進集權計畫的政治工具,國民黨在這種情況下,基於台灣安全與政治考量,是時候放棄「九二共識」,當中方已自行破壞這份共識,國民黨也必須與時俱進。

 

The Times of India

Cross-Taiwan Strait Manoeuvres: Does Xi Jinping really want to scuttle Taiwan’s KMT?

September 30, 2021, 1:07 AM IST

Rudroneel Ghosh in Talking Turkey , World, TOI

 

Turning our attention to political developments in Taiwan – a state that is facing the brunt of China’s aggression on a daily basis – the opposition party Kuomintang (KMT) recently elected Eric Chu as its chairman. This won’t be the first time that Chu has been elected as party chair and he faces a host of challenges as he looks to revitalise the KMT. But right off the bat, he seems to have dug himself into a hole. Chinese President Xi Jinping actually sent Chu a congratulatory letter on his election as party chair, seeking common cause in restoring peace across the Taiwan Strait, resisting Taiwan independence and working towards peaceful reunification. Now, any politician worth his salt should have smelt a trap given the current China-Taiwan tensions. Hence, Chu should have simply ignored Xi’s letter.

Instead, not only did Chu acknowledge the letter he actually responded to it. He laid the blame for cross-Taiwan Strait tensions on the door of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and stated his position opposing Taiwan independence. He further stated that the KMT and China could find common ground and respect one another’s differences with the 1992 Consensus as the foundation.

This is not only downright absurd but also tantamount to political suicide. First, he should know that receiving and acknowledging a congratulatory letter from a Chinese leader in the current political-security climate where Beijing is threatening Taipei militarily on a regular basis will be construed as colluding with the enemy. In fact, it is preposterous that the head of a political party in a democracy is receiving congratulations from the head of an inimical state. Second, by saying that he opposes Taiwan independence in his response to Xi, Chu has already painted himself pro-unification in public imagination. He may split hairs by saying that he is in favour of the 1992 Consensus – that both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of the same China with each side free to interpret this differently – but it really doesn’t matter. When the vast majority of Taiwanese youth want nothing to do with China and value the open, democratic system in Taiwan – they are also the reason that DPP has been in power since 2016 — for Chu to not clearly reject reunification while opposing independence is a massive self-goal.

Besides, the 1992 Consensus itself isn’t without controversy with the concept admittedly made up by Taiwan’s former mainland affairs council chief Su Chi. In any case, the 2014 Sunflower Movement in Taiwan showed the political limits to the application of the concept under the previous KMT regime. Plus, the main reason why the 1992 Consensus failed is that China and Taiwan don’t have the same definition of this concept. After all, China uses it to only stress ‘One China’, while Taiwan under KMT stressed the alternative interpretation part. And with the current regime in China taking an ultra-nationalistic turn, there is no way that Beijing will make any room for KMT’s different interpretation of the 1992 Consensus.

In fact, it will be recalled that Xi in 2019 had articulated a ‘One Country, Two Systems’ offer for Taiwan just like Hong Kong. Not only was this widely rejected by the Taiwanese, it – along with the pro-democracy Hong Kong protests — actually torpedoed the KMT’s chances in the 2020 presidential polls. So why would Chu commit such a political blunder?

The only explanation is that Chu was elected as KMT chair with the help of the party old guard that wants some form of reunification with China, and hence his response to Xi was in deference to this fact. But it is still a mistake, for the Taiwanese youth and the future of Taiwan want to preserve Taiwan’s democracy and independence. Which brings me to the question: Why would Xi send a congratulatory letter to Chu knowing full well its repercussions in Taiwan for the KMT? He must know that he has already politically clipped Chu’s wings with this act. This leads me to believe that perhaps Xi doesn’t really care about KMT or its political fortunes. And having DPP in power in Taiwan actually suits Xi’s internal politics within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It allows him to whip up nationalism over the Taiwan issue and brand his opponents who think otherwise as anti-nationals and therefore open to appropriate purges. After all, even Xi knows that the majority of Taiwanese are against reunification. That’s why he has to send fighter aircraft and battleships to threaten Taiwan periodically.

And as time goes by, more and more Taiwanese will become distant from China. On the other hand, a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan will come with huge costs for Xi. At this point, such a course of action could well see the US abandon its strategic ambiguity towards defending Taiwan and use the AUKUS and Quad platforms for Taiwan’s defence.

Taken together, it is quite possible that the Taiwan issue has become a convenient political tool for Xi to further consolidate his power within the CCP and advance his centralisation project. This still leaves KMT with a huge problem. But for the sake of political relevance and Taiwan’s security, it is perhaps time for the party to abandon the 1992 Consensus – younger KMT members anyway want this. When Beijing itself has corrupted the 1992 Consensus, why hang onto this old relic? KMT must change with the times.

< 資料來源:《自由時報》〈即時新聞〉引用網址 >
分享文章:

最新文章: