Three key phrases that every member of the world community should know and be able to explain when discussing Taiwan-China cross-strait affairs are the following: status quo, the "1992 consensus" and the National Unification Council and guidelines.
To facilitate this, the following excerpts from a hypothetical Dummy's Guide to Understanding Taiwan-China Cross-Strait Phraseology are provided below.
First the status quo. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Like all things that Ma says, one should never examine them too closely. If the status quo were the color white, for China it would be red; for the USA it would be blue; and for the KMT it would be red with some blue, while it is green for the Democratic Progressive Party. We all know that white is white, but don't let that bother you, because we are all still one big, happy family.
Next there is the "1992 consensus." Again Ma succinctly hits the nail on the head: "All sides should return to the `1992 consensus' and we will all be one big, happy family."
Of course a few minor details have been left out.
First there never was a consensus; former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (
Second, even though the topic was discussed by both sides, neither Taiwan nor China wanted to sign off on it.
Third, the non-KMT majority of Taiwan was not consulted on this.
Fourth, since no one can express what the never-achieved consensus was, we should defer to the status quo mentioned above.
Thus by returning to the consensus of 1992 we will all still be one big, happy family.
Finally there are the National Unification Guidelines. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has mothballed them as useless. Ma disagreed, saying that they are symbolically useful and that by keeping them we will all be one big, happy family.
However, there are some glitches.
First, the Taiwanese were not consulted when the KMT came up with the guidelines in 1991.
Second, China never agreed with the guidelines when the KMT created them.
Third, China has continuously violated the guidelines by deploying missiles and working to obstruct Taiwan from joining international organizations and participating in international activities.
Fourth, the only word in the guidelines that China likes is the word "unification."
Fifth, contrary to what happens in practice, the real goal of the guidelines was the establishment of a democratic, free and equitably prosperous China.
Forget about all that, Ma has enough trouble with the word "democracy" when talking with China anyway. So he states that the National Unification Guidelines should be kept.
Now that you understand the three essential phrases related to cross-strait affairs, memorize them and begin using them. In this way, all sides and parties involved will remain one big, happy family.
Of course I should mention that what each side and each party involved mean by one, and what they mean by big, and what they mean by happy and what they mean by family are totally different and have contradictory meanings. Nevertheless, don't let that put you off, just follow the decisive lead set by Ma. We are all still one big happy family. Understand?
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
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