When parties come to power, they are often compelled to modify their values to achieve certain ends. Like it or not, a future Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration could be forced to swallow a bitter pill and deal with Beijing based on the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Such a scenario, however, does not necessarily mean that the party would have to sell out its core values. Even though the DPP has rejected the “1992 consensus” — that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” — the room for interpretation of this “consensus” is something the party could exploit.
Given their traditional opposition to this “consensus,” for pan-greens to accept this is a non-starter, as the most problematic issue is the connotation of what the term “one China” refers to.
According to the “1992 consensus,” the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have agreed not to actively challenge each side’s own interpretation of what “one China” is.
Under the KMT’s interpretation, “one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC), which encompasses the Taiwan, or “free,” and “mainland” areas. The CCP defines “one China” as all territories under the rule of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), including Tibet and Xinjiang, Taiwan, the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) and pretty much all of the South China Sea.
However, this generally accepted premise of “one China” — that Taiwan is a part of China — is just that: a premise.
As for the DPP, it too recognizes “one China” — a PRC that does not include Taiwan.
If the KMT and CCP are happy to play this interpretation game, defining territories based on their own interests, what’s to stop the DPP from entering the arena where it could change the dynamics from within the same framework?
Although Beijing will never admit it, the “1992 consensus” it follows as the basis for cross-strait relations is essentially a tacit acceptance that Taiwan does not belong to it, and as long as a DPP administration does not reject outright the “consensus” or formally declare independence, Beijing would have no reason to reject talks with Taipei.
The DPP would not even have to make public its interpretation of “one China;” it’s already known where the party stands on this.
Rather, if it approached talks with Beijing using the “1992 consensus” as a basis, yet with the mindset that there is indeed one China that does not include Taiwan, it could break a potential impasse that as of now would closely follow the possible election of DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) as president.
Granted, the DPP would have to answer to the deep-green segment of the party, which would scoff at any notion of adopting the “1992 consensus,” but if the neck-and-neck results in recent polls translate into a narrow victory for Tsai in January’s presidential election, such a result could hardly be considered a resounding endorsement of the party’s cross-strait policy, including its rejection of the “1992 consensus.”
DPP figures have shown themselves to be capable of pragmatic approaches when dealing with Taiwan’s political status. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) — when he was in power at least — considered the ROC as Taiwan and Taiwan as the ROC, while former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) not too long ago proposed his “constitutional consensus” theory, which included the idea of “one Constitution, two interpretations.”
By appropriating the basis of “one China” and influencing the debate from within the “1992 consensus,” a DPP administration could go a long way toward defining, in the eyes of the world, Taiwan’s political status once and for all.
Ted Chang is a copy editor at the Taipei Times.
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