Late last month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) cited China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Vice Chairman Li Yafei’s (李亞飛) statement at a cross-strait peace and wealth creation forum in Taiwan on Aug. 11 to support his claim that the so-called “1992 consensus” exists.
Su said ARATS and Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) agreed that each side of the Taiwan Strait insist on adhering to the “one China” principle. Su also said that this was what the consensus meant.
However, this claim shows that the foundation of cross-strait negotiations between President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration and Beijing is the “one China” principle and not the “1992 consensus.”
The Ma administration has always told the public that the “1992 consensus” is “one China, with each side making its own interpretation.” It was therefore shocked to hear the ARATS vice chairman say that the consensus was in fact the “one China” principle. Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) quickly denied this, saying the consensus was that there is “one China,” each side having its own interpretation of what China is.
Three months later, five days after the sixth meeting between SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), the KMT used Li’s statement to prove the existence of the consensus, in effect ignoring Siew’s denial. If Li’s statement is taken to verify the truth about the consensus, then the KMT has shown itself to accept the “one China” principle. After all, it would be quite strange to call something on which there is no agreement a “consensus.”
The “one China” principle is also the basis for the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) that Taiwan signed with China. The change in Beijing’s attitude toward the ECFA can be traced directly to Ma’s political stance after resuming the chairmanship of the KMT. At the first Central Advisory Council meeting of his tenure held on Oct. 18, 2009, he said that “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” means that both sides accept the “one China” principle, but that they could make their own interpretation as to what that means. He therefore made the “one China” principle a premise to “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
After Ma clarified his political stance, China changed its passive attitude toward ECFA. A few days later, on Oct. 25, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi (王毅) said the two sides could exchange opinions on the signing of an ECFA during the fourth Chiang-Chen meeting. Later, when Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) met with former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) on Nov. 14, 2009, he promised to start ECFA talks by the end of that year.
After the ECFA was signed, Beijing reminded countries that the ECFA is a domestic business agreement, not an international one.
Since Ma came to power two-and-a-half years ago, there has been a subtle switch in the way the international community views Taiwan, from having de facto, but not de jure, independence, to seeing it as a de jure, but not de facto, part of China.
Therefore, the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait as defined by China’s “Anti-Secession” Law has become internationalized. This has come to pass because of the government’s tacit agreement on the “one China” principle for the sake of signing cross-strait agreements.
Taiwan faces the crisis of eventual unification with China because of Ma’s acceptance of the “one China” principle, an act that has internationalized China’s “Anti-Secession” Law.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry