‘1992 consensus’ irrelevant
There is much debate about the so-called “1992 consensus.” This “consensus” has nothing to do with Taiwan. It is only relevant to China and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) quest to unite with China.
The fictional “1992 consensus” concerns the existence of “one China” and the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may or may not have come to some understanding, each without respect or reference to the people either of Taiwan or China, but this “understanding” does not bind anyone except the two political parties.
Whether or not these two entities believe there is “one China” does not require the 23 million Taiwanese to agree that Taiwan is somehow China. Even the KMT has repeated over and over (whether its leadership believes it or not) that the future of Taiwan will be left to its people, not the KMT or China, to decide.
Nor does the so-called “1992 consensus” involve the issue of whether Taiwan is part of China. The reason for this is the KMT’s convenient usage of the term Republic of China (ROC). That term has nothing to do with Taiwan’s sovereignty. It was coined long before the KMT came to Taiwan, when the latter was still a colony of Japan.
The KMT’s obsession with the consensus is proof that it does not consider Taiwan’s interests as important compared with China’s. The consensus does not involve Taiwan’s sovereignty at all and the two interpretations mentioned in the consensus only concern who rules China. The fact that it is ignored by the CCP and the KMT is because there exists an obvious and very real third “interpretation”: that Taiwan belongs to Taiwan.
It is not surprising that the KMT and the CCP ignore this, because to confront it would reveal an inconvenient truth — that both the KMT and CCP lay claim to the same land, which is now the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Taiwan’s sovereignty issue is merely a tool the two sides use to distract everyone in China and Taiwan while they talk about how to divvy up the spoils.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) considers himself the president of China, with Taiwan being a tiny part of what he considers his domain. He may play here and there in Taiwan, but he does not consider himself the president of the Taiwanese people. He is just temporarily in Taiwan until his party can make arrangements for its triumphant return to the “Mainland.”
And what happens to Taiwan then? Casinos, betel nut beauties, red-light districts, tourism and not much else. It will be a new Macau.
The “1992 consensus” cannot involve the sovereignty of Taiwan, because it does not allow for the possibility that Taiwan is independent, admittedly an issue yet to be resolved. Therefore, for the “1992 consensus” to govern relations across the Taiwan Strait necessarily involves the surrender by the KMT of Taiwan’s sovereignty (never mind the ROC, which does not exist except in the minds of the KMT) because under either interpretation, Taiwan cannot be sovereign.
For the KMT to argue that this so-called consensus is therefore somehow the only possible result is disingenuous because it contradicts the KMT’s own proclamation that the people of Taiwan must be allowed to determine their own future and because it means the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese cannot achieve what poll after poll shows they believe — that is that they are citizens of an already free and independent Taiwan.
The KMT is playing fast and loose with the people of Taiwan and Ma needs to come clean about this. There is no Taiwanese sovereignty in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), none in the 15 agreements signed between the KMT and the CCP, none in the “1992 consensus” and none in the KMT’s future.
The KMT cannot give up Taiwan’s sovereignty issue now, because then the KMT will have nowhere to go. That is why the KMT clings to Taiwan and will cling to it until it can negotiate its way back onto the “Mainland.”
The people of Taiwan need to remember that fact when they vote in 2012.
LEE LONG-HWA
New York
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