History is written by powerful people. "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." George Orwell's famous lines in his book 1984 were once again proved in Taiwan recently.
The 1992 negotiations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the past. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has the power to control the present. According to Orwell's principle, since Chen can control the present, he certainly can control the past of 1992 and the future across the Strait.
The strange thing is that the term "1992 consensus" has never officially existed. The phrase "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" (一個中國,各自表述), however, has continuously appeared in official and non-governmental documents since 1992. Politicians from all parties also used to parrot this line. But why has the phrase suddenly vanished now that the "1992 consensus" is being denied?
Is it possible that all the newspapers, magazines, books, files, documents, recordings, video tapes and computer databases that have recorded the phrase over the past eight years were thrown into 1984's "Memory Hole" and disappeared? Or have all 23 million people of Taiwan been collectively brain-washed by a certain unbelievable power to believe that the phrase, which has never existed, was real? Or was there another unbelievable power which made many people collectively forget that the phrase did exist in the past?
Those with different historical perspectives may write down "different histories" but cannot create "different historical facts."
Chen's denial of the "1992 consensus" is the denial of that the term ever existed. His denial is not an effort to control the past, nor to rewrite historical facts. But when he repudiated the existence of the phrase "one China, with each side having its own interpretation," he was rewriting historical facts and trying to control the past.
Successors universally deny and change their predecessors' policies and political paths. On the issue of national identity, the DPP has differed greatly from the KMT. If Chen wants to reverse "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" made under KMT rule -- just like his ending of the "no haste, be patient" (戒急用忍) policy -- he is certainly empowered to do so.
But to reverse a policy and to deny its existence are two different matters. To reverse a policy is to reverse a policy path. To deny its existence, however, is to deny historical fact. Chen may refuse to agree to, accept and carry on with such a policy, but he must admit to this period of history.
In the future, different historical accounts of Taiwan based on pro-unification and pro-indepen-dence viewpoints may emerge. But if different historical facts emerge on the basis of either the unification or independence stance, Taiwan may become Oceania of 1984, where the leaders become Big Brother. Its government may have a branch, called the Ministry of Truth, under which is a "Memory Hole," responsible for "vaporizing" recorded historical facts.
If Taiwan continues denying past events, what kind future lies ahead?
Wang Chien-chuang is the president of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers