04/20/2026
王希哲：现在讲第二题,所谓“武统”台湾问题
自从1976年10月,我与刘晓波发布《对国共两党的双十宣言》,主张的就是国共两党在孙中山先生的旗帜下再度合作,共同创造一个和平民主的新的中国。因此,我反对国共再次的内战,当然反对所谓的“武统”台湾。
中国的海外民运,王炳章是创始人。它一开始就得到中国国民党的支持和金援。王炳章亲口告诉我,那时,蒋经国是亲自指示宋楚瑜经办对中国民联的经济援助的。蒋经国指示说,希望中国民联“站在民族大义立场”,“共产党错的批评共产党;国民党有错也可以公开批评国民党,无需顾虑”。那时的海外民运,有大批的国民党人和台湾精英人士参加,根本无分大陆台湾。王炳章夫人就是台湾杰出女性宁勤勤。
国民党是反对台独的,海外民运当然反对台独。什么时候发生变化的呢?是蒋经国去世,李登辉上台后。原日本共产党员的李登辉是骗取了蒋经国信任获得国民党高位的日本皇民遗孽。他上台后开始还能假装继承蒋经国路线,制定了“国家统一纲领”,稳住地位后,很快便开始进行他的台独路线,扶植台独民进党膨胀和上台。在这演变背景下,中国民联开始排挤和最后“开除”了坚决反对台独的民联创始人王炳章。整个海外民运也就逐渐向民进党输诚和绿化。最先去拿民进党钱的,是王丹和王军涛。他们拿了陈水扁给的“国务机要费”几十万。王丹开始隐不承认,是黄伟成当面露了他。薛伟也很生气(为什么略)。然后,王丹便学着民进党的口径在纸上登文章,公然称台湾的中华民国是“外来殖民政权”了。希哲看了愤怒,与郭平一起去当面批评了他。但自此,整个海外民运改换门庭,投绿趋势不可遏止。支持台独,反身大骂国民党,成了海外民运的“政治正确”。王炳章被共产党特务绑架回国入狱后,海外民运“大佬”几乎只有王希哲一人拒绝绿化,成坚决反对台独,坚决支持国民党的中流砥柱了。他出版了整本书《论台湾》。洪哲胜恨透了王希哲!
两蒋的路线,原来都是对共产党进攻的路线。蒋介石要“反共大陆”这是军事进攻，;蒋经国要“三民主义统一中国”是政治进攻路线。台独的目的,则是要打断这进攻路线。所以,民进党前身
的“台湾革命党”是受到大陆共产党的支持和暗助的。张灿洪、
许信良、洪哲胜们熟读毛选。他们在台独的口号下反蒋。但当
他们发展起来后,尾大不掉,日本殖民台湾的皇民遗孽势力逐步控制了它,假台独变真台独了。民进党宣称,民进党第二次代表大会姚嘉文主席的报告为民进党的台独纲领奠定了“基石”。这“基石”,姚嘉文依据日本的立场,称美日旧金山和约没有确定台湾的归属,所以根本上台湾主权仍属日本,故台湾可自决独立,或回归日本。在这个理论逻辑下,他们称中华民国在台湾是“中国人侵略了台湾”,中华民国是必须从台湾赶走的“外来殖民政权”。中国国民党为什么要拼死反对台独?因为这是它生命所系。它不反对台独,它在台湾的存在本身就是“非法”的,两蒋,连同整个中国国民党,整个中华民国,整个在台“中国人”都将生无立锥之所,死无葬身之地!更何谈中国国民党对大陆的政治进攻路线?故王希哲三十年哓音瘏口反复指出,大陆对台湾民进党台独的斗争,中国国民党对民进党台独的斗争,本质,是“中华民族百年对日民族抗战的继续”。日本皇民民进党一心要消灭中华民国,恨透了两蒋。他们把中华民国国旗踩在脚下;他们向“蒋公”雕像泼墨、砍头、推倒、砸烂;直到最近,他们还集会叫喊要彻底废除“蒋公”纪念堂。怪的是今日毫无头脑的“海外民运”竟还要举着国民党“青天白日旗到台湾会馆门前去ഀ挥舞,表示支持台独!真拜错了庙。这绿色的台湾会馆正是要撕碎这“青天白日旗”,要赶走中国国民
党,要消灭中华民国的神主呢!他们“脑袋进水”一点逻辑没有。辛灏年先生讲中国中国抗日史,反共很激烈,但他有一个学者的逻辑,既然充分肯定中国国民党的对日抗战,当然就要支持国民党本质仍是抗日继续的反台独了。那个台湾的“八炯”倒懂得需纠正“民运”们的逻辑,开始带领他们高呼“打倒共产党!打倒国民党!”了。
今日“民运”和不少盗冒“中国民主党”旗号的混混,声称他们支持台独是反共。莫名其妙了!台独明明是逃跑,明明是为了斩断两蒋既定对大陆共产党的进攻路线,怎么会是“反共”?你们可问问“八炯”:“如果共产党允许你们台独了,你们还反共吗?”,看他民进党怎么回答你。其实陈水扁吕秀莲们早就回答了。他们说,台独后,台湾“建国”后,台湾国便与中华人民共和国“睦邻友好”。
要说“反共”,谁是中共长久的心腹之患?决不是民进党,只有中国国民党,只有坚持在台湾的“中华民国”。这点,大陆真正的毛派们比谁都清楚,比谁都紧张。连战、宋楚瑜、马英九来了,毛派生怕民众对这些国民党领袖所代表的政治符号的欢迎和回忆。他们知道,共产党革命受害者的社会势力还在,仇共心理还在,这些人盼望国民党如苦旱之望云霓。我若是共产党毛派,我一定先放手让民进党台独,借民进党手先连根铲除了国民党,为我去掉心腹之患,放手让民进党先为我清除掉台湾的一切国民党统治文化印记,今后,我在台湾再文化大革命都免了。没有了国民党,没有了“中华民国法统”,没有了“中华民国国军”,武统台湾那是易如反掌,不费吹灰之力的。民进党“黑熊部队”抵抗解放军?笑话!
那么,难道希哲与辛灏年先生影响的“民国派”一样,希望国民党“反共复国”?那也不是。希哲与共产党没有阶级仇恨。他的“反共”,是信奉孙中山先生的三民主义,甚至相信毛泽东曾誓言的“三民主义为今日中国之必须。本党愿为其彻底得实现而奋斗”的“新民主主义”。他相信国共两党历史皆师出孙门。当年无非都是想寻找“救中国”之路而相歧相争。那以后,百年历史已经证明了孙先生所断言的“共产主义制度不适合今日之中国”。
毛后,邓“改开”了,在中国取得了惊人成就,其实,不过是回归了孙中山三民主义的“民主、民生”两主义所获的成功。所欠缺者,唯民权主义耳。只有国共两党的再度合作,共建一个和平民主的ෛ的中国,才可能将这镜缺一阙的民权主义补上,而在事实上(不在名头上),完成“今日中国之必须”的三民主义统一中国。这,也就是中国民主党第二次代表大会在徐文立前主席领导下决议要求全党为之奋斗实现的中国“第三共和”。民进党台独打断了这样的中国民主前途理想,我们当然应该反对台独。
有人质疑,台独理论法源,未必全出“日本主权论”和“台湾地位
未定论”,而更出于联合国“人民自决”论吧?不对!联合国所有
的主张民族自决、人民自决的宣言文件,都贯穿着一个前提,即它针对的是外国的统治:“使人民受外国的征服、统治和剥削的这一情况,否定了基本的人权,违反了联合国宪章,并妨碍了增进世界的和平与合作”。
因此。1960年联合国大会决议《给予殖民地国家和人民独立宣
言》界定了民族自决与人民自决的适用范围,是结束殖民地制度。它的第六条明确宣示:以“自决”为借口“任何旨在部分地或全面地分裂一个国家的团结和破坏其领土完整的企图都是与联合国宪章的目的和原则相违背的”。
任何民主,只能民主它能够民主的东西,如地方行,无权片面“民主”国家的既定领土主权。所以加೭大的魁北克无权片面“自决独立”;英国的苏格兰、北爱尔兰无权片面“自决独立”。这里美国的法拉盛、阿汉博拉、蒙翠帕克、圣盖博、罗兰岗...无论今后华人住民占比多少,哪怕占了百分之百,你可以民主选出华人行政市长,却都无权民主“住民自决”去独立建国。因为法拉盛、阿汉博拉、蒙翠帕克、圣盖博、罗兰岗...的领土主权是全美国人民的,不是法拉盛、阿汉博拉、蒙翠帕克、圣盖博、罗兰岗...住民可以片面“自决”决定和割裂去的。更简单,如你家祖传下来的大房产,某厢房由你的哥或姐住多年,他们几代下来有了大群的子孙,那房的所有权也不能是你哥姐和他们的大群子孙可以自行民主“住民自决”的。今日美国在内的国际社会都不能支持台独,就出这个道理。又有人说,辛亥革命后,不是各省都宣布独立吗?毛泽东还主张“湖南独立”呢。那是革命时期,各省战中央府的行独立,是追求革命胜利达至国家最后完全统一的阶段手段。除在苏俄怂恿下的外蒙外,辛亥没有一省宣布过脱离中国领土主权的“独立”。即使外蒙公投“独立”,也需民国中央政府的勉强同意,共产党“新中国”政府完成外交手续,直至60年代,才得了联合国的最后承认。其实民进党都比你们更明白这个道理,既定的国家主权不可片面独立。所以他们才把他们台独法源的“基石”,不是建立在自由主义的“住民自决”上,而是自嗨和企图国际游说,把台独法源强词建立在所谓“日本主权”或“台湾主权未定”的荒诞基础上。国民党对两蒋大陆政治进攻路线的最后继承,是2010年连战在大陆提出的“一国两制”。2018年,希哲与马英九晤谈,也特别强调希望国民党延续连战的口号,在两岸的互动中,继续提出“一国两制”的意见。最近,我在给新任郑丽文主席的微信中,也反复建议国民党高举孙中山的旗帜,接过连战前主席(郑丽文是连战的学生)的口号,向大陆中共政府提出“一国两制,和平统一”的建议。但郑丽文甚至习近平两人在会见中,也只客套了几句“中华民族一家亲”与“两岸和平发展”。国家统一和如何统一,全不见提出讨论。国民党软弱?比两蒋,当然软弱。但
它为什么软弱不统一和如何统一,完全是台独民进党在压迫他们。在台湾(甚至在海外“民运”),反中华民国宪法的台独成了“政治正确”,“统一”等同了“向共产党妥协、投降”。绿色恐怖下,国民党生存都岌岌可危,你要他们如何向大陆提出进取性统一意见?强人所难了。
我认为,中国民主党应该把敦促中共政府承认中华民国政府在中国台湾事实存在的任务,肩负起来。只有中共政府承认了中华民国政府在中国台湾事实的存在,中国国民党才可能在民进党面前重新直起腰来,奋力夺回政权,于向中共提出“一国两制”的进取性统一意见。须知,中共要与台湾谈统一,与谁谈?与党谈?与基金会谈?都是空谈,只能与政府谈。不承认中华民国台湾地方政府,你怎么谈?谁说谈统一就是“妥协投降”?不敢谈统一,偏安“独台”,置自己于道义ഁ打的地位,到最后只能是妥协投降一途。作为政治杠杆,推动中国国民党提出“一国两制”的统一,不谈两岸制度孰优孰劣谁统一谁,敬请两岸全国人民和全世界华人都来讨论何为“良制”,讨论后,全中国大多数人都可接受这良制而愿和平和睦统一生活于这良制的文明国家中,那将是一场多么浩大的中国人自我民主教育运动?抓住这杠杆,中国民主党在其中将大有空间大有作为。如此,谁还敢奢言什么武统?有人说,“你要两制,共产党就不打你”。我说谅他不敢。统一于“良制”,这是民族道义的制高点。你占了这制高点,共产党恃强蛮干,他师出无名,他就在全中国全世界人民面前输了理,他就无法发动武统。我们应当相信民心所向的巨大心理力量。
最后,为什么台湾的民进党当局又曾把我诬为“武统团长”,禁
止我入台了呢?我是支持国民党的,民进党历来对我不待见。2019年春,台湾大学几位教授和国军的几位退役将领邀请我率几位学者到台湾座谈交流。那时,我还颇相信台湾的“言论自由”,想意见光谱展开一些,便请了主张武统的李毅和较代表北京意见的李肃,再加两位资深自由派的冯胜平、郭彦华连我共五人组团去。那时,李毅已经在台湾,大讲武统,闹得鸡飞狗跳。民进党绿营一听我将率包括李毅的人士组团赴台交流,紧张起来,不问青红皂白,咬定了这是“武统宣讲团”,我是“武统团长”。苏贞昌、陈明通便下令驱逐了李毅,同时禁止了我和李、冯、郭四人的入台。我至今还在台湾入境黑名单中。哈哈,我可算是全世界华人因政治原因被禁进入包括中国大陆、香港、澳门、台湾四地的唯一一人!
(第二题“武统台湾问题”完。第三题“毛粉问题”,待后接续)
2026年4月11日
于大洛杉矶工业城
Now, let us address the second issue: the so-called question of the "military unification" of Taiwan.
Since October 1976—when Liu Xiaobo and I issued the *Double Tenth Declaration to the Kuomintang and the Communist Party*—our core advocacy has been for the two parties to resume cooperation under the banner of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, working together to create a new China that is both peaceful and democratic. Consequently, I oppose a resumption of civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party; naturally, I also oppose the so-called "military unification" of Taiwan.
Wang Bingzhang was the founder of China's overseas pro-democracy movement. From its very inception, the movement received both political support and financial backing from the Kuomintang (KMT). Wang Bingzhang told me personally that, at the time, Chiang Ching-kuo had personally instructed James Soong to oversee the provision of financial aid to the Alliance for Democracy in China (ADC). Chiang Ching-kuo’s directive was that he hoped the ADC would "uphold the greater national interest": "If the Communist Party errs, criticize the Communist Party; if the Kuomintang errs, you may openly criticize the Kuomintang as well—there is no need for hesitation." In those days, the overseas pro-democracy movement attracted the participation of a great number of KMT members and Taiwanese elites; there was absolutely no distinction made between people from the Mainland and those from Taiwan. Indeed, Wang Bingzhang’s wife was Ning Qinqin, a distinguished woman from Taiwan.
The Kuomintang opposes Taiwanese independence; naturally, the overseas pro-democracy movement opposed it as well. When did this situation change? It changed after Chiang Ching-kuo passed away and Lee Teng-hui assumed power. Lee Teng-hui—a former member of the Japanese Communist Party—was a remnant of the Japanese colonial era who had secured a high-ranking position within the KMT by deceitfully winning Chiang Ching-kuo’s trust. Upon taking office, he initially feigned adherence to Chiang Ching-kuo’s political line—even formulating the *Guidelines for National Unification*—but once his position was consolidated, he quickly began to pursue his own agenda of Taiwanese independence, actively fostering the growth of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and facilitating its rise to power. Against this backdrop of political evolution, the ADC began to marginalize—and ultimately "expel"—its own founder, Wang Bingzhang, who had remained steadfast in his opposition to Taiwanese independence. Consequently, the entire overseas pro-democracy movement gradually began to pledge its allegiance to the DPP and underwent a process of "Green-ification" (alignment with the DPP). The first individuals to accept funds from the DPP were Wang Dan and Wang Juntao; they accepted hundreds of thousands in "State Affairs Confidential Funds" provided by Chen Shui-bian. Wang Dan initially attempted to deny this fact, but Huang Weicheng publicly exposed him during a face-to-face confrontation. Xue Wei was also deeply angered by this turn of events (the specific reasons for his anger are omitted here). Subsequently, adopting the rhetoric of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Wang Dan published articles in print media openly labeling the Republic of China in Taiwan as an "alien colonial regime." Outraged by this, Wang Xizhe—accompanied by Guo Ping—went to confront and criticize him in person. Yet, from that point onward, the entire overseas pro-democracy movement underwent a fundamental realignment; the trend of "going Green"—aligning with the DPP—became unstoppable. Supporting Taiwan independence and vehemently denouncing the Kuomintang (KMT) became the "politically correct" stance within the overseas pro-democracy community. After Wang Bingzhang was abducted by Communist Party agents, repatriated to China, and imprisoned, Wang Xizhe stood virtually alone among the "heavyweights" of the overseas pro-democracy movement in refusing to "go Green"; he became a steadfast pillar of resistance against Taiwan independence and a staunch supporter of the KMT. He even published an entire book titled *On Taiwan*. Hong Zhesheng came to loathe Wang Xizhe!
The political lines pursued by the two Chiangs—Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo—were, in essence, strategies of offensive action against the Communist Party. Chiang Kai-shek sought to "recover the mainland from the Communists"—a strategy of military offense; Chiang Ching-kuo sought to achieve "unification of China under the Three Principles of the People"—a strategy of political offense. The objective of the Taiwan independence movement, conversely, was to sever this offensive trajectory. Consequently, the "Taiwan Revolutionary Party"—the precursor to the DPP—received both support and covert assistance from the Communist Party on the mainland. Figures such as Chang Tsan-hung, Hsu Hsin-liang, and Hong Zhesheng were avid students of Mao Zedong’s *Selected Works*. Under the banner of Taiwan independence, they waged a campaign against the Chiang regime. However, as their movement grew in strength and scope—reaching a point where the tail began to wag the dog—it was gradually co-opted by the residual forces of the "Imperial Subjects" faction: those elements still loyal to the legacy of Japanese colonial rule in Taiwan. Thus, what began as a *de facto* independence movement evolved into a *de jure* independence movement. The DPP has explicitly declared that the report delivered by Chairman Yao Chia-wen at the party's Second National Congress laid the "cornerstone" for the DPP's platform on Taiwan independence. In laying this "cornerstone," Yao Chia-wen—adopting a stance aligned with Japan—argued that since the San Francisco Peace Treaty between the U.S. and Japan failed to definitively determine the political status of Taiwan, sovereignty over the island fundamentally remained with Japan; therefore, Taiwan possessed the right to self-determination—either to declare independence or to revert to Japanese rule. Based on this theoretical logic, they characterized the presence of the Republic of China in Taiwan as an act of "Chinese aggression against Taiwan," and branded the Republic of China itself as an "alien colonial regime" that must be expelled from the island. Why, then, does the Chinese Kuomintang fight so desperately against Taiwan independence? Because its very existence depends upon it. It does not oppose Taiwan independence; indeed, its very presence in Taiwan is inherently "illegal." Consequently, the two Chiangs—along with the entire Kuomintang, the entire Republic of China, and all "Chinese" residing in Taiwan—would be left with nowhere to stand while alive and nowhere to be buried after death! How, then, could one even speak of the Kuomintang pursuing a political offensive against the mainland? For this reason, Wang Xizhe has tirelessly and repeatedly emphasized for thirty years that the struggle waged by the mainland against the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) push for Taiwan independence—as well as the struggle waged by the Kuomintang against that same DPP independence agenda—is, in essence, "a continuation of the Chinese nation's century-long war of national resistance against Japan." The "Imperial Subject" DPP is single-mindedly bent on eradicating the Republic of China and harbors an intense hatred for the two Chiangs. They trample the national flag of the Republic of China underfoot; they have defaced statues of "Generalissimo Chiang" by splashing them with ink, beheading them, toppling them, and smashing them to pieces; and as recently as the present day, they continue to hold rallies clamoring for the complete abolition of the "Generalissimo Chiang" Memorial Hall. Strangely enough, today’s utterly mindless "overseas democracy movement" activists still insist on hoisting the Kuomintang’s "Blue Sky and White Sun" flag—marching right up to the entrance of the Taiwan Center to wave it—as a gesture of support for Taiwan independence! They are truly worshipping at the wrong temple. This "green-leaning" Taiwan Center is precisely the entity that seeks to shred this very "Blue Sky and White Sun" flag, to drive out the Chinese Kuomintang, and to obliterate the very spiritual essence of the Republic of China! They must have "water in their brains"—they possess absolutely no logic whatsoever. Mr. Xin Haonian, in his lectures on China’s history of resistance against Japan, is a fierce anti-communist; yet, he possesses a scholar’s logic: having fully affirmed the Chinese Kuomintang’s role in the War of Resistance against Japan, one must, by extension, support the Kuomintang’s continued—and fundamentally anti-Japanese—stance against Taiwan independence. That Taiwanese figure, "Ba Jiong," at least understands the need to correct the logic of these "democracy activists"; he has begun leading them in chanting, "Down with the Communist Party! Down with the Kuomintang!"
Today, members of the "democracy movement"—along with quite a few riffraff illicitly appropriating the banner of the "China Democracy Party"—claim that their support for Taiwan independence is, in essence, an act of anti-communism. This is utterly baffling! Taiwan independence is clearly an act of evasion—a deliberate attempt to sever the established strategic line of attack against the mainland Communist Party that was laid down by the two Chiang leaders. How, then, could it possibly be construed as "anti-communism"? You might as well ask "Ba Jiong" directly: "If the Communist Party were to grant you permission for Taiwan independence, would you still oppose the Communist Party?" Just see how he—and his Democratic Progressive Party—answers you. In truth, figures like Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu have already provided the answer long ago. They have stated that following independence—once Taiwan has "founded its nation"—the "State of Taiwan" would simply maintain "friendly and neighborly relations" with the People's Republic of China.
If one were to speak of... Regarding "anti-communism": who constitutes the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) enduring, deep-seated threat? It is certainly not the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP); it is—and can only be—the Kuomintang (KMT), and specifically the "Republic of China" that persists in Taiwan. On this point, the mainland's true Maoists are clearer than anyone else—and more apprehensive than anyone else. When Lien Chan, James Soong, and Ma Ying-jeou arrived, the Maoists were terrified by the public's welcome of—and nostalgic sentiment toward—the political symbols these KMT leaders represented. They know that the social forces comprising the victims of the Communist revolution still exist, as does the underlying animosity toward the Party; these people yearn for the return of the KMT with the desperation of those parched by drought longing for rain. If I were a Maoist within the Communist Party, I would certainly step aside and allow the DPP to pursue independence first; I would use the DPP's own hands to first uproot the KMT—thereby eliminating my own deep-seated threat—and let the DPP clear away every cultural imprint of KMT rule in Taiwan. That way, I would be spared the trouble of having to launch a "Cultural Revolution" in Taiwan myself in the future. With the KMT gone—and with the "legitimacy of the Republic of China" and the "Republic of China Armed Forces" no longer in existence—the military reunification of Taiwan would be as easy as turning over one's hand; it would require absolutely no effort at all. The DPP's "Black Bear Troops" resisting the People's Liberation Army? What a joke!
Does this, then, imply that Xi Zhe—much like the "Republic Faction" influenced by Mr. Xin Haonian—hopes for the KMT to "oppose communism and restore the nation"? That is not the case, either. Xi Zhe harbors no class-based animosity toward the Communist Party. His "anti-communism" stems from his adherence to Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People—and, indeed, from his belief in the very pledge once made by Mao Zedong himself: that the "Three Principles of the People are an absolute necessity for China today." ...the "New Democracy"—a concept for whose thorough realization our Party is willing to strive. He believed that, historically, both the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist Party (CCP) trace their intellectual lineage back to Sun Yat-sen. In those early days, their divergence and conflict stemmed from nothing more than their differing quests to find a path to "save China." Since then, a century of history has vindicated Mr. Sun's assertion that "the communist system is ill-suited for the China of today."
In the post-Mao era, Deng Xiaoping initiated the "Reform and Opening-up" policy, achieving astonishing successes in China. In reality, however, these achievements merely represented a return to—and a realization of the success inherent in—two of the three principles of Sun Yat-sen's *Three Principles of the People*: namely, "Democracy" and "The People's Livelihood." The only element still lacking is the third principle: "The People's Rights" (or Political Rights). Only through renewed cooperation between the KMT and the CCP—working together to build a peaceful, democratic, and unified China—can this missing piece of "The People's Rights" be restored. This would, in substance (if not necessarily in name), fulfill the *Three Principles of the People* as the "indispensable requirement for the China of today" to achieve unification. This, too, is the vision of a Chinese "Third Republic"—a goal that the Second National Congress of the China Democracy Party, under the leadership of former Chairman Xu Wenli, resolved that the entire Party must strive to realize. The pro-independence agenda of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) threatens to derail this ideal vision for China's democratic future; consequently, we must, of course, oppose Taiwan independence.
Some have questioned whether the theoretical and legal basis for Taiwan independence stems entirely from the "Japanese Sovereignty Theory" or the "Undetermined Status of Taiwan Theory," suggesting instead that it draws more heavily upon the United Nations' doctrine of "the self-determination of peoples." This is incorrect! Every United Nations declaration and document advocating for national or popular self-determination is underpinned by a fundamental premise: that such self-determination applies specifically to situations involving foreign domination. As stated in UN resolutions, "the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation."
Consequently, the 1960 United Nations General Assembly Resolution—the *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples*—clearly defined the scope of applicability for national and popular self-determination: namely, the dismantling of colonial systems. Article 6 of this Declaration explicitly asserts that any "attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations"—even if such an attempt is made under the pretext of "self-determination."
Any form of democracy can only be applied to those matters that are, by their very nature, amenable to democratic governance—such as local administration. ...have no right to unilaterally challenge the established territorial sovereignty of a "democratic" nation. Consequently, Quebec in Canada has no right to unilaterally pursue "self-determination and independence"; likewise, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom have no right to unilaterally pursue "self-determination and independence." By the same token—here in the United States—places such as Flushing, Alhambra, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, and Rowland Heights... regardless of what percentage of the population consists of Chinese residents in the future—even if it were to reach one hundred percent—while you may democratically elect a Chinese mayor to administer the city, you nonetheless possess no right to exercise democratic "resident self-determination" to secede and establish an independent nation. This is because the territorial sovereignty of Flushing, Alhambra, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, and Rowland Heights... belongs to the entire American people; it is not something that the residents of these specific localities can unilaterally decide to sever and appropriate through "self-determination." To put it even more simply: consider a large estate that has been passed down through your family for generations. If a particular wing of the house has been occupied by your brother or sister for many years—and over the course of several generations, they have produced a large number of descendants—the ultimate ownership of that property still cannot be unilaterally determined by your brother, sister, and their numerous descendants through a process of democratic "resident self-determination." Today, the international community—including the United States—does not... If one were to support Taiwan independence, this is the only rationale one could possibly offer. Some might counter by asking: Did not various provinces declare independence following the Xinhai Revolution? Did not Mao Zedong himself even advocate for "Hunan independence"? However, that was a revolutionary era; the *de facto* administrative independence exercised by the provinces against the central government served merely as a transitional means to achieve revolutionary victory and, ultimately, the complete unification of the nation. With the sole exception of Outer Mongolia—which acted under the instigation of Soviet Russia—not a single province during the Xinhai period ever declared "independence" involving a secession from China's territorial sovereignty. Even Outer Mongolia's referendum for "independence" required the reluctant consent of the Republic of China's central government, and the completion of diplomatic formalities by the Communist "New China" government, before finally receiving recognition from the United Nations in the 1960s. In truth, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) understands this principle even better than you do: established national sovereignty cannot be unilaterally severed. That is precisely why they chose not to lay the "cornerstone" of their legal basis for Taiwan independence upon the liberal concept of "self-determination of peoples." Instead—indulging in self-delusion and attempting to sway international opinion through lobbying—they have forcibly constructed their legal justification for independence upon the absurd premises of so-called "Japanese sovereignty" or the notion that "Taiwan's sovereignty remains undetermined." The Kuomintang's response to the "political offensive" strategy directed at the mainland by the two Chiang leaders was... The legacy subsequently inherited is the "One Country, Two Systems" framework that Lien Chan proposed on the mainland in 2010. In 2018, during a meeting with Ma Ying-jeou, I specifically emphasized my hope that the Kuomintang (KMT) would carry forward Lien Chan’s slogan—continuing to advocate for "One Country, Two Systems" within the context of cross-strait interactions. More recently, in a WeChat message to the newly appointed Chairwoman Cheng Li-wen, I repeatedly urged the KMT to hold high the banner of Sun Yat-sen, to adopt the slogan of former Chairman Lien Chan (Cheng Li-wen is a former student of Lien Chan), and to formally propose the concept of "One Country, Two Systems, Peaceful Unification" to the CCP government on the mainland. Yet, during their respective meetings—whether it was Cheng Li-wen or even Xi Jinping—both parties merely exchanged a few polite pleasantries regarding the notion that "the Chinese nation is one family" and the pursuit of "peaceful cross-strait development." The fundamental issues of national unification—and *how* that unification is to be achieved—were conspicuously absent from the discussion. Is the KMT weak? Compared to the era of the two Chiangs, it is, of course, weak. However, the reason for this weakness—specifically, their failure to address the issues of unification and the means thereof—lies entirely in the pressure exerted upon them by the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). In Taiwan (and even within the overseas "democracy movement"), the pro-independence stance—which fundamentally contravenes the Constitution of the Republic of China—has become the prevailing "political correctness," while the very concept of "unification" has been equated with "capitulating to the Communist Party." ...or "surrender." Under the shadow of this "Green Terror"—a climate of political intimidation—the very survival of the Kuomintang (KMT) hangs precariously in the balance; how, then, can one reasonably expect them to put forward proactive proposals for unification to the Mainland? To demand this of them is to ask the impossible.
I believe that the China Democracy Party should shoulder the responsibility of urging the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government to formally acknowledge the *de facto* existence of the Republic of China (ROC) government in Taiwan. Only when the CCP government acknowledges the *de facto* existence of the ROC government in Taiwan can the KMT regain its stature and confidence in the face of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), strive to reclaim political power, and subsequently present the CCP with proactive proposals for unification—specifically, the "One Country, Two Systems" framework. It must be understood that if the CCP wishes to negotiate unification with Taiwan, with whom exactly is it to negotiate? With a political party? With a private foundation? Such approaches amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric; negotiations regarding unification can *only* take place between governments. If you refuse to acknowledge the ROC government in Taiwan—even if only as a regional administration—how can any meaningful dialogue take place? Who claims that discussing unification constitutes "compromise and surrender"? On the contrary, a refusal to discuss unification—opting instead for a passive, separatist stance focused solely on "Taiwan independence"—places one in a position of moral vulnerability; ultimately, such a path leads nowhere but to the very compromise and surrender one sought to avoid. By acting as a political lever to encourage the KMT to propose a "One Country, Two Systems" model for unification—without getting bogged down in debates over which cross-strait system is superior or who should ultimately govern whom—we can advance the cause of peaceful unification. I hereby respectfully invite people across the Taiwan Strait—indeed, all Chinese people and the entire global Chinese diaspora—to engage in a discussion regarding the nature of a "sound system of governance." If, following such a discussion, a majority of people throughout China find this "sound system" acceptable—and are willing to live together in peace and harmony within a civilized nation governed by it—what a monumental movement of democratic self-education for the Chinese people that would be! By seizing this strategic lever, the China Democracy Party would find itself with immense scope for action and the opportunity to make significant contributions. Under such circumstances, who would still dare to idly prattle about "unification by force"? Some have argued, "If you insist on 'Two Systems,' the Communist Party won't attack you." To that, I reply: I doubt they would dare. Unification under a "sound system" represents the moral high ground for the entire nation. If you occupy this high ground, and the Communist Party attempts to act with brute force and arrogance, they will lack any legitimate casus belli; they will lose the moral argument in the eyes of the people of both China and the world, and they will be rendered incapable of launching a military campaign for unification. We must place our faith in the immense psychological power of where the hearts and minds of the people truly lie.
Finally, why is it that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities in Taiwan once falsely accused me of being a "commander for unification by force" and subsequently banned me from entering the island? I am a supporter of the Kuomintang (KMT), and the DPP has historically viewed me with disfavor. In the spring of 2019, several professors from National Taiwan University—along with a number of retired officers from the Republic of China Armed Forces— A general invited me to lead a group of scholars to Taiwan for discussions and exchanges. At that time, I still had considerable faith in Taiwan's "freedom of speech" and wanted to broaden the spectrum of opinions, so I invited Li Yi, who advocated unification by force, Li Su, who represented Beijing's views, and two senior liberals, Feng Shengping and Guo Yanhua, to form a delegation of five including myself. At that time, Li Yi was already in Taiwan, making a big fuss about unification by force, causing quite a stir. When the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) heard that I was leading a delegation including Li Yi to Taiwan for exchanges, they became nervous, indiscriminately insisting that it was a "propaganda team for unification by force" and that I was the "head of the unification team." Su Tseng-chang and Chen Ming-tong then ordered the expulsion of Li Yi and banned me, Li, Feng, and Guo from entering Taiwan. I am still on Taiwan's entry blacklist. Haha, I'm practically the only Chinese person in the world banned from entering mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan for political reasons!
(Second question, "The issue of military unification of Taiwan," is finished. Third question, "The issue of Maoist supporters," will be continued later.)
April 11, 2026, in Industrial City, Greater Los Angeles
05/28/2026
05/26/2026
04/29/2026