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 event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS