Here’s a good tip. If you want to win an argument or debate, draw your opponent into discussing a subject of your own choosing, confining their ideas to parameters you yourself have set. A good example of this is the drawn-out debate on “two interpretations of the Constitution” and “a constitutional one China” that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been engaged in of late. I would say that the party has clearly allowed itself to fall into the trap.
Now that the five special municipality elections are over, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have turned their attention, in a bid for unification, to the presidential election next year. The first salvo came in the form of advice to the DPP, graciously given and channeled through the pro-unification media in Taiwan. The two parties said that if the DPP wanted to get back in power, it would need to secure the approval of the electorate. This was by way of promoting the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), something they themselves consider to be a kind of cure-all for Taiwan’s economic problems. At the same time, they reminded the DPP that the rise of China was a fact it would have to face up to at some point, that it could not avoid having a cross-strait policy and that it might even be the difference between victory and defeat in next year’s election.
The so-called “1992 consensus” — the idea that there is “one China,” with each side free to interpret what this “one China” means — they said is a prerequisite for dealing with China and if the DPP continues to deny the existence of this consensus, it would have to come up with a solution for the cross-strait policy impasse. In short, if the DPP fails to offer an alternative, it will be very difficult for the party to return to power next year, or so their argument goes.
“Two interpretations of the Constitution” is the DPP’s answer to the debate formulated by the KMT and CCP. It is the “alternative plan” that it has come up with — the result of much head-scratching and brain-storming. The party is laboring under the delusion of being constructive, building a tower of its own design and locking itself in. That tower already has a name. It is called “one China.” I’m sure the CCP is observing all this, lips parted in a smile, because it is a tower that it wanted built anyway.
If the DPP uses the idea of “a constitutional one China” as a prerequisite to dealing with China, that idea will become set in stone and it will be impossible to change any “one China” clauses. This will be a significant victory for supporters of unification.
The pan-greens have to realize that the pan-blues’ challenge for them to come up with an alternative approach is, in itself, a trap. If they engage them on these terms, they will be caught in a trap of their own making. It’s also worth bearing in mind that there is no such thing as the “1992 consensus.” It doesn’t exist.
The very idea that “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” forms the basis for cross-strait relations is a conceptual trap cleverly concocted by the CCP and the KMT. First, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) invites DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to state her position on the proposition at hand. Next, Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) ups the ante with the threat that, without the “1992 consensus,” Beijing might have to rethink its current Taiwan policy.
The reality is that Taiwan and China were already communicating back during the -administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and didn’t need the “1992 consensus.” Moreover, didn’t trade between China and Taiwan really take off under the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), with his “one country on either side” formula? What is it with all this talk of “prerequisites” since Ma took office? We are the only ones who stand to lose anything by continuing down this road.
Our approach and our discourse on cross-strait relations have been quite clear right from the start. We want peace, we want to participate as world citizens and we want to engage other countries in the world. At the same time, we want to work together with China on the common goal of having stable relations. Of course we see China as an important market, but we also want to be able to trade with the rest of the world too, for the good of our citizens. This is what we were doing in the past, before 2008, so why do we need to have a consensus now?
We need to escape from this trap laid for us by the CCP and the KMT to have the freedom to set our own vision.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis 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