“One China, two governments” was recently suggested by Chu Shulong (楚樹龍), deputy director of the Institute of International Strategic and Development Studies at Tsinghua University in Beijing, as an alternative framework for cross-strait relations. China has not responded to his idea. In Taiwan, meanwhile, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) did respond, and with a degree of urgency, saying that the concept was open to discussion.
The idea of “one China, two governments,” if accepted, would overturn the so-called “1992 consensus,” a concept that was essentially fabricated anyway. As such, the new suggestion is a slap in the face for Ma. It is funny he never considered the “1992 consensus” open for discussion.
The biggest difference between Chu’s idea and the “1992 consensus” is that the reason Ma keeps banging on about the latter is to maintain the sole, and non-negotiable, precondition for cross-strait negotiations. He has said that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should not abandon the “consensus” even if it wins the next presidential election. In “one country, two governments,” China now has another argument, demonstrating that the “1992 consensus” is not set in stone after all, and that it can be replaced. Indeed, if “one country, two governments” did become official Chinese policy, Ma’s “consensus” would quickly become obsolete.
Chu’s idea is but one way in which China and Taiwan could proceed. Whether it is workable, or whether it could actually succeed, is beside the point. What is important is the train of thought that led Chu to his conclusion.
He says that if China and Taiwan want to maintain relatively long-term and stable relations, they need to reach a bilateral agreement and establish an appropriate framework. According to Chu, the current formulations, the “1992 consensus” and even “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,” are interpreted differently by each side, and either side could conceivably unilaterally change the situation at any time.
He certainly has a point. Precisely because the “1992 consensus” is a fabrication, the idea of “one China” that rests on it remains open to interpretation. If the “consensus” really is as Ma says it is, and that documentation exists, then there must have been a formal agreement at one point. And if this is the case, how can one maintain that any part of it is open to interpretation, or that Chu has a leg to stand on in his argument?
Ma berates DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for not recognizing the “1992 consensus,” saying that she is not facing up to reality. That is your reality, Ma, and it is a bubble recently burst by a Chinese academic. The “1992 consensus” has been held up as some kind of principle that can be used to neutralize the pro--independence movement and facilitate eventual unification, but now it has been exposed for the fake it is. Even the Chinese-language United Daily News, considered to be a deep-blue newspaper, has had to adjust its position on the matter.
Until recently, the newpaper has consistently attacked Tsai over her position on the “consensus,” its main point being that the DPP has nothing else to offer Taiwan if it denies the “1992 consensus.” Now that an alternative, the “one China, two governments” idea has appeared on the scene, the paper has changed its tune, saying that there is no need to hide behind the rather vague “1992 consensus.”
The United Daily News itself concedes that the “1992 consensus” is vague, and admits that the reason behind it is to obfuscate the issue. What more needs to be said?
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS