Lee Teng-hui and other KMT leaders have long understood the
implications of Taiwan's unique political identity. The debate has been the
source of the greatest share of political hostility between the DPP and KMT.
It is also the reason for continuous infighting within the KMT before, during,
and after the 14th and 15th party congresses, and continues to be the
overarching political problem facing politicians in Taiwan today. The question
was a focal point in the 1996 campaign for president, punctuated by military
threats from the mainland and a show of American naval power to check
Beijing's attempts to influence the elections. Lee Teng-hui knows that his
popularity is in large part dependent on his handling discussions surrounding
Taiwan's political status and the related issue of subethnic rivalry. The issue
concerns all politicians, but attention is especially focused on the president to
articulate his vision of Taiwan's political future. Lee chose to present his
views of Taiwan's political identity in what he thought was a comparatively
benign corner of politics--foreign policy. It proved to be a hornets nest of
controversy, eliciting strong reactions at home and from Beijing.

The KMT"s non mainstream faction and members of the CNP contend
Lee Teng-hui has abandoned the KMT goal of mainland recovery. High
ranking Lee supporters have rejected these accusations by arguing mainland
recovery is the very reason Lee has supported business investment in the
mainland--to uphold the livelihood principle of the San Min Chu I in order to
help the mainland make the transition to democracy and join with Taiwan.
If the mainland is not ready to make this transition to democracy by having
reached some degree of economic maturity, mainland recovery will not be
accepted by the people of Taiwan. ¹ But by acknowledging that the people of
Taiwan may have a say in mainland recovery rather than sticking to the

-119-