Poor old President Chen Shui-bian (
After being roundly panned over the years as the troublemakers who refused to accept and recognize the "1992 consensus" by the US, China and opposition parties, a ray of light finally broke through the mist on Tuesday when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi (
Su said he coined the phrase in the hope that the cross-strait deadlock could be broken and that both sides of the Strait could retain a "basis for dialogue."
But who was Su to decide what was best for Taiwan? Granted, at that time he was the chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, but it did not give him the right to just make something up, let alone make a decision on such a politically sensitive issue while keeping his boss -- then-president Lee Teng-hui (
Just because Su personally believed that the term was good for the people of Taiwan did not mean it was necessarily so.
The transfer of power in 2000 could have been a great opportunity for Taiwan to step up the pace in its bid for nationhood. Yet, since then, the road has been extremely bumpy both domestically and internationally because of the shackles placed on the nation by Su and his fabricated "consensus."
During the 1992 meeting held in Hong Kong, China insisted on sticking to its "one China" principle while the representative of the KMT government stuck to "one China with each side having its own interpretation." No consensus was ever reached nor was any document signed under these premises.
When Koo Chen-fu (
Su insists today that although he made up the term, it worked out well as both the US and China accepted the phrase.
The question that needs asking now is: Why should the DPP government have to shoulder the responsibility for Su's lies?
Take the recent controversy over Taiwan's national title as an example, where the Republic of China (ROC) was crossed out in a program distributed at a concert where Chinese performers were present.
If a consensus on "one China with each side having its own interpretation" existed, then surely an event held in Taiwan would have every right to display the title, the ROC, without any objections.
Moreover, during former KMT chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) last May, Hu publicly stated that the meaning of "one China" in the "one China with each side having its own interpretation" was the People's Republic of China (PRC) -- with Lien standing dumbly beside him.
If the "1992 consensus" existed, why didn't Lien then stand up and rebuff Hu's comments?
If KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Instead, Ma today stood up and insisted there was a "1992 consensus." It seems that Ma's contempt for the public knows no bounds these days.
For the past six years or so, the pro-localization government in Taiwan has been struggling to walk freely because of these "1992 consensus" chains. Now that the truth is finally out, the DPP government should break free from these ideological shackles and get back to building Taiwan's national consciousness.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS