“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
That saying from a notorious propaganda chief seems to be what President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is aiming for with its so-called “1992 consensus” — which has become a ubiquitous term among Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese officials alike.
Never mind the fact that former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 openly admitted fabricating the term in 2000 before the KMT handed power over to the Democratic Progressive Party, nor the fact that China has made it clear that the “1992 consensus” is just another way of describing its “one country, two systems” policy — which does not at all recognize that each side of the Taiwan Strait has its own interpretation of what “one China” means. The Ma administration has nonetheless stuck to this lie, as it continues to deceive the Taiwanese public and toe Beijing’s line.
Following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) warning earlier last month that there would be “earthshaking” consequences to cross-strait relations if the political basis of the “1992 consensus” is challenged, Ma yesterday reiterated the importance of the so-called consensus as a “foundation for peaceful cross-strait development” by further threatening his own people that cross-strait relations would descend into “chaos” if people go against it.
It is one thing for China to sell its interpretation of the “1992 consensus” to members of the international community, as it has made no secret of its ambition to annex Taiwan. However, it is another thing when a head of state like Ma, who was elected by his own people, resorts to such tactics and allows Beijing to take advantage of the people with nary a protest.
“I deeply believe that peace and prosperity are the future of the two sides [of the Taiwan Strait] ... and what most Taiwanese expect,” Ma said in a speech during a visit to the Mainland Affairs Council, which council officials said was timed to commemorate the first high-level cross-strait meeting 22 years ago in Singapore.
Indeed, no one objects to having peaceful cross-strait relations, but peace must not be built on Taiwan’s voluntary denigration of its own status and forsaking its dignity as a sovereign state.
If Ma genuinely cares for peaceful cross-strait development, the dignity of the Republic of China which he represents, as well as the well-being of Taiwanese, rather than hanging on to the spurious “1992 consensus” and pushing the nation toward Beijing’s “one China” framework, he should speak out against China’s “Anti-Secession Law” and urge Beijing to revoke it.
While the law, enacted in 2005, claims to promote peaceful unification, it provides a legal basis, from the Chinese perspective, to rein in Taiwanese independence and facilitate the nation’s annexation through the use of military force. It clearly stipulates that Beijing — in the event that “Taiwanese independence” forces act under any name or by any means to cause Taiwan’s secession from China — shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures “to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The motive and content of the law show nothing but malice and threats to peace on Beijing’s part.
It is downright pathetic that the Ma government believes in a consensus that does not really exist, all the while lacking the guts to stand up to Chinese aggression and bullying.
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
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
RSS