‘1992 consensus’ fallacy
In 1992, then-Straits Exchange Foundation chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and Wang Daohan (汪道涵), the then-chairman of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, held negotiations in Hong Kong and later in Singapore and Shanghai. They met to exchange ideas about the cross-strait relationship, but they did not reach any consensus in written records. Instead, the two sides had different interpretations of the “status quo.” Beijing’s main objective was to persuade Koo to accept its “one China” principle.
In 2000, then-Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) fabricated the so-called “1992 consensus” term. He said an agreement had been reached in 1992 in which the two sides agreed that there is only “one China” with each side having its own interpretation.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) insist that “one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. They have desperately used this false “consensus” as a political tool to deceive Taiwanese. In 2006, Su admitted that he had made up the term.
Former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) have repeatedly denied the existence of a “1992 consensus.” Even the late Koo denied that such a consensus was ever reached.
When the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established in 1949, Beijing declared that the ROC had ceased to exist and claimed that Taiwan was a part of China. Therefore, the PRC would not let Taiwan make its own interpretation of what “one China” is. In his “six-point statement,” Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in 2008 rejected the possibility of letting Taiwan have its own interpretation of “one China.” The PRC does not seem to object to the KMT’s insistence of the existence of the “consensus” because they trust Ma’s goal is “ultimate unification with China.”
The KMT cannot produce any written documents to prove the existence of the consensus. Ever since Ma assumed the presidency in 2008, he has skillfully collaborated with the PRC to promote his goal of unification with China. Ma’s pursuit of eventual unification permeates all his major policies. Ma’s “three-noes” policy, “diplomatic truce” and emasculation of military strength are all designed to please Beijing. Ma has sacrificed Taiwan’s sovereignty and reduced it to a local region of China. Ma seems content to be the leader of “Chinese Taipei.” The World Health Assembly listed Taiwan as a province of China. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) will gradually bind Taiwan to a Chinese common market.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) strongly denies the existence of the so-called consensus and has proposed to replace it with a “Taiwan consensus,” which would include the broadest possible ideas from the Taiwanese public. Ma continuously attacks Tsai and warns voters that if she wins, the cross-strait relationship will revert to the stalemate of the Chen era.
Taiwan has signed 16 agreements with the PRC since 2008. Those agreements were not signed by the two countries, but rather the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party. Ma has never dared to visit China as the president of the ROC and his officials have not dared to mention “President Ma” to Chinese officials. Ma has beguiled the people and vehemently denies that he is trying to sell Taiwan out to China and sacrifice Taiwan’s sovereignty. Tsai must win the presidential election on Saturday and preserve Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Edwin Kung
Renton, Washington
Expat has expat’s back
I would like to comment on Slawomir Starok’s letter about the cowardly attack he suffered in New Taipei City (新北市) (Letter, Dec. 21, page 8).
Starok, a foreigner, commented to a scooter driver that the two children he was transporting should have been wearing helmets. This concerned man had the children’s welfare in mind. The cowardly rider took exception and instead of thanking or ignoring the foreigner or even insulting him, chose to call two of his friends. Starok, unaware of the state of mind of the rider, walked off with his wife and two children.
The rider’s accomplices soon showed up. One of them, a craven coward and psychopath, snuck up behind the man and struck him in the head with a brick. Starok’s wife and children were terrified and traumatized by this brutal and cowardly assault on their father/husband.
His letter stated that the police were informed and that there was a surveillance camera they checked. The poor victim claimed that the police seemed uninterested, as it was an assault on a foreigner. This was not the first time we foreigners have heard that the police take crimes against foreigners in Taiwan less seriously.
We never heard of any arrests despite the eyewitnesses, testimony and evidence, let alone the camera if such was truly available. If the facts are as presented, it may be time to replace the chief of police in New Taipei City with someone who understands that crime and justice involves citizens and non-citizens alike. If the police are uninterested or incapable of pursuing justice in New Taipei City, then foreigners will be advised to spend their money in other cities.
Meanwhile, we will all wait and see if justice in New Taipei City is solely reserved for Taiwanese or if these criminals will be arrested and charged.
Chaim Melamed
Pingtung
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