Although President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) regularly revels in this fabrication, the time has come for all Taiwanese to dump the hypocrisy of the “1992 consensus.” The so-called consensus of 1992 is a fraud formulated by former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起).
Allegedly, the purpose was to facilitate cross-strait talks, and even then the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never publicly agreed to it. Further, the talks that were being “facilitated” at that time were not nation-to-nation talks, but rather party-to-party talks between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). What was really happening was that both parties were trying to find a way to maintain their respective claims that there was only “one China” which they represented. That idea must be scrapped.
The real consensus that Taiwanese should acknowledge is what came four years later when the nation took part in Taiwan’s first presidential election of the people, by the people and for the people. This is the gist of the recent effort by former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) and other politicians in establishing the 1996 Consensus Promotion Alliance. This alliance spells out and specifies agreement of all parties in Taiwan as to the basis of Taiwan’s nationhood and hence its national identity.
Taiwan does have an identity problem. The pan-blue and pan-green parties have conflicting interpretations of what its identity is. Many Taiwanese are themselves struggling with the idea of what it means to be Taiwanese. As they struggle, however, one thing they can and should agree on is that Taiwan is a democratic nation. It is a democratic nation in which the people not only can, but also have been consistently and freely electing their president since 1996. Political candidates who cannot accept the reality of this statement should be drummed out of office and rejected by the people.
Taiwanese must realize that for too long outsiders have been imposing their thoughts on Taiwan. The US in its official policy claims that the status of Taiwan is “undetermined.” Undetermined by whom? The people of Taiwan already do determine their president and their future. The PRC, of course, also wants to get in on the act and claims it has the right to determine Taiwan’s future. These are the issues — the US does not want to admit to it, and the PRC wants to take it away.
One can be blue, one can be green, and one can have his or her own ideas on where the nation should go. However, everyone — yes, everyone — should agree that whatever direction and path the nation chooses, that choice is the sole responsibility and right of the Taiwanese people and no one else. To believe otherwise would amount to treason.
That may sound harsh, but it is the line that should and must be drawn and all politicians should be held accountable to it. It is even stronger than the idea that politicians should not hold dual citizenship. It may seem strange that Taiwanese have never directly formulated the belief in a “1996 consensus” before, for the idea is so simple and basic to any democratic country’s existence. Regardless, Taiwanese should wait no longer; this is an idea whose time and need for expression has come.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS