Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
The agreement between Lien and Hu takes the so-called "1992 consensus" and rejection of Taiwanese independence as its foundation, which is completely in line with the "one China" and anti-independence position the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's State Council outlined in the May 17 statement. The tasks outlined by the Lien-Hu communique are: to establish a mechanism for communication between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the resumption of cross-strait negotiations to achieve peace, promoting cross-strait economic exchanges and allowing Taiwan more space on the international stage. All of these items were included in the Taiwan Affairs Office's policy statement, which actually showed more goodwill toward Taiwan.
The cross-strait problem is a conflict between sovereignties, and at its heart is the principle of "one China." The current talks have sought to replace "one China" with the "1992 consensus" as a means to open up cross-strait interaction and build a brighter future. If the conflict over sovereignty can be put on one side to allow for interaction and negotiation, there is no reason for Taiwan to object to this. But negotiations will necessarily be restricted to the economy and other functional applications, and at this time it will be very difficult to transcend the conflict over sovereignty to sign a cross-strait peace agreement or build a structure for peace across the Strait.
When it was in power, the KMT was aware that the "one China" issue could not be resolved quickly and that there was no room for compromise. In 1996, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council made a study of the "one China" principle and came to the conclusion that "those people who suggested that the Taiwan government should discuss `one China' more extensively in the hope that China would change its mind were simply engaged in wishful thinking."
Does replacing "one China" with the "1992 consensus" actually create more opportunities for cross-strait interaction and greater international space for Taiwan? If the "1992 consensus" is so efficacious, why was there no progress in establishing a cross-strait accord between 1992 and 2000, when the KMT was in power? In fact, after 1993, Taiwan became subject to constant reprimands that it was failing to abide by the "one China" principle. The cross-strait situation became increasingly tense, so much so that from 1995 to 1996 and 1999 to 2000 China threatened Taiwan militarily and conducted missile tests.
In December 2003, during the presidential election campaign, Lien said at a press conference that since China often only mentions the first part of the so-called "1992 consensus" ("one China") but not the second part ("with each side having its own interpretation") he did not want to discuss the "1992 consensus" anymore.
Now he has had the opportunity to meet with Hu for several hours, but when Lien reiterated his interpretation of the "1992 consensus" during their meeting, Hu did nothing to show agreement, nor did he respond in any way. So have the KMT and the CCP really reached a consensus on the "1992 consensus?" If they have not, then how can we expect the Democratic Progressive Party government to accept it?
And lastly, in a televised debate between the presidential candidates last year, Lien said that "the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent country, and we will not allow it to join, be annexed by, or unite with, the People's Republic of China." Could it be that this position is also part of the "1992 consensus" and the vision shared by Lien and Hu?
It is to be hoped that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will be able to communicate their problems in a straightforward manner. That would be the only way to truly resolve the issue.
Lien's visit has pioneered top-level exchanges between political parties on each side of the Strait, and that probably helps to promote mutual understanding. Lien and Hu, however, have not been able to approach the heart of the cross-strait issue head-on. The fact that the meeting between the two only amounted to an endorsement of China's statement on May 17 last year may not be a big help in solving the cross-strait issue.
Tung Chen-yuan is an assistant professor at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew and Perry Svensson
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS