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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US