Amid the recently rekindled debate over what best describes the 50-year period when Taiwan was under Japan’s administration, Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) on Monday night finalized the use of “Japanese occupation” (日據) in government documents, arguing that this concept, rather than “Japanese rule” (日治), “maintains the Republic of China’s (ROC) sovereignty and the dignity of the people.”
It’s funny to hear the premier oh-so-righteously defend the ROC’s sovereignty and dignity when his boss, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), appears to be belittling the ROC through his latest interpretation of the so-called “1992 consensus.”
On Saturday, in response to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) congratulatory letter on his re-election as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman, Ma brought up the “1992 consensus” and wrote “both sides of the Taiwan Strait reached a consensus in 1992 to express each other’s insistence on the ‘one China’ principle.”
The statement came as a sharp departure from the interpretation that the KMT has long defended, ie, that it refers to the supposed understanding reached between Taiwan and China in 1992 that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “one China” means.
“One China, with each side having its own interpretation” (一中各表) harbors distinct differences from the phrase “each other’s insistence on the ‘one China’ principle.” While Ma may confuse some with these political tongue twisters, one thing is certain: His latest rendition of the so-called consensus is wrapped up in the “one China” framework (一中框架) that shows an obvious tilt to China’s interpretation, which sees the “1992 consensus” as “respective expressions on the ‘one China’ principle” (各表一中).
US cables released by WikiLeaks in September 2011 have long exposed the KMT’s illusion that Beijing supports the idea of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” These cables quoted Chinese officials and Chinese academics as clearly stating that China does not recognize that each side has its own interpretation of “one China,” because such an interpretation would be tantamount to acceptance of two Chinas — a situation intolerable to Beijing.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has long contended that the so-called consensus does not exist, a position further cemented by former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi’s (蘇起) admission in 2006 that he made up the term in 2000, before the KMT handed over power to the DPP.
In other words, Ma has constructed his entire cross-strait policy on a fabricated “1992 consensus” and now he is further deceiving the Taiwanese public by toeing Beijing’s line, which downgrades the ROC’s sovereign status.
Taiwanese singer Yeh Wei-ting (葉瑋庭) over the weekend on a Chinese reality television singing competition introduced herself as coming from “China Taipei Pingtung District (中國台北屏東區).” While this act of self-belittlement has drawn much criticism from netizens in Taiwan, the indignation ought to be directed at Ma and his government for setting countless bad examples for its people, by voluntarily dropping the names Taiwan or ROC and referring to itself by silly names such as “Chinese Taipei” on the international stage and even at events held on home turf.
Repeat a lie a thousand times and eventually someone may start to believe it.
While it may be despicable for Ma to try to deceive the Taiwanese public and veer the nation toward China’s “one China” framework without the public’s consent, why don’t Taiwanese get angry at all in the face of the government’s blatant deception?
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS