It's about the right to self-determination

Update: On instructions from Rank, I made a closer reading of the article and it a hypothetical situation rather than report that Ma and Siew have a new position. I should have paid more attention to 伺機. Therefore, read everything below with that in mind.
=========================
Michael Turton alerted me to a piece over on the China Times website. The KMT announces its position that the ROC = Taiwan, a policy Chen Shui-bian has stated many times for years and the KMT used to vigorously attack.

二○○八年大選本土戰開打！國民黨總統參選人馬英九啟動「本土化實踐三部曲」，先修黨章通過「去統加台灣」文字，再推出包括以台灣或中華民國名義在內重返聯合國的公投；最後將由馬英九、蕭萬長伺機正式宣示「中華民國就是台灣」，讓國民黨完全轉型為本土政黨。

The 2008 election war over nativization has begun! KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou has fired up the "3 stages of putting nativization into practice," first amending the party charger to get rid of unification references and adding Taiwan; then pushing for a referendum that would get Taiwan into the UN under either the name Taiwan or the ROC; and finally, Ma Ying-jeou and vice presidential candidate Vincient Siew have officially announced that "The ROC is Taiwan," which completes the KMT's transition to being a nativized party.

A couple of things. First, it's very interesting that a paper like the China Times -- which is generally going to publish articles against "de-Sinozation" and generally derides nativization -- hails the KMT's move as part of a massive transition. They seem strangely satisfied that the transition is "complete." And how does this position fit with the 92 consensus that Ma will accept? Certainly that dictates that the ROC = China + Taiwan, right?

Second, this position on the referendum is a shift from Ma and the KMT's old referendum plan of applying under the name of ROC only. This new position is exactly the kind think makes the most sense. It asks for a practical solution and tries to point out that the issue isn't the nation's name, but that Taiwanese people seek to be represented. Good job, even if it is election posturing.

The article goes on to quote a KMT official saying the difference between the KMT and DPP policy is thus: The DPP supports a "Taiwan = Republic of Taiwan" policy while KMT supports a "Taiwan = Republic of China" policy. This is BS, of course. While the DPP does hope to see the eventual establishment of a Republic of Taiwan, the DPP party charter states on the resolution regarding Taiwan's future:

第一、台灣是一主權獨立國家，任何有關獨立現狀的更動，必須經由台灣全體住民以公民投票的方式決定。
1. Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation and any move to change that independent status-quo must be decided by the entire Taiwanese population by referendum.

第二、台灣並不屬於中華人民共和國，中國片面主張的「一個中國原則」與「一國兩制」根本不適用於台灣。
2. Taiwan is not part of the People's Republic of China and those Chinese positions unilaterally held by the Chinese side such as "The one China principle" or "One country, two systems" simply cannot be applied to Taiwan.

And earlier:

台灣，固然依目前憲法稱為中華民國，但與中華人民共和國互不隸屬，任何有關獨立現狀的更動，都必須經由台灣全體住民以公民投票的方式決定。
Taiwan certainly is currently labeled the Republic of China by the constitution, but it is not a part of the PRC. Any attempt to change the independent status-quo must be decided by the entire Taiwanese population by referendum.

Therefore, I'm going to point out what I consider the bottom line.

A truly nativized KMT would hold the following positions:
1. ROC = Taiwan
2. ROC != PRC
3. Any change to this status-quo requires the Taiwanese people to decide by referendum.

The article suggests an impending KMT position that looks like this:
1. ROC = Taiwan
2. Uphold a "One China, two interpretations" policy through the 92 consensus. Ignore any conflict with point 1.
3. China and Taiwan both have a right to decide Taiwan's future, and Taiwan does not have the right to referendum to make its part of the decision.

So you can see how the KMT still needs to go a little farther before I can consider them another Green party, which is what I think they have to be if they hope to win.

Update: Chen has also said that the key is rejecting both "One country, two systems" and the "One China, two interpretations" model.