Wed, May 13, 2015 - Page 8 News List

The Liberty Times Editorial: Toughening up against ‘one China’

It is necessary to give a more accurate account of what actually took place at the time.

At the talks in Hong Kong, it was China that insisted on the problem and implication of “one China.” However, both sides swapped 13 versions of statements, resulting in only verbal exchanges without agreeing on a written consensus.

In other words, the two sides agreed that there was no agreement on the meaning of “one China” and that they each had the freedom to explain what the “consensus” meant.

The result of the meeting was that Beijing initially respected and accepted the SEF’s verbal interpretation of the implications of “one China,” although it later only stressed that there is “one China.” Yet at the time, 75 percent of the public was opposed to the “one China” principle.

The term “1992 consensus” was created by then-Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2000. Five years later, Lien used it as the foundation for initiating cross-strait relations during his visit to China.

After Ma took office, the concept was used to push Taiwan increasingly in the direction of eventual reunification with China, and he declared that the “1992 consensus” was “proposed by us and accepted by China.”

Ma also transplanted the National Unification Guidelines onto the Hong Kong talks. It is indeed like Taiwan Solidarity Union Chairman Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝) later said: Ma, the MAC vice chairman at the time of the Hong Kong talks, “not only has amnesia, but is also delusional.”

Most fundamentally, anybody who does not support the “one China, different interpretations” concept, but criticizes those who are opposed to it and forces others to accept it likely suffer from another mental problem: split personality disorder.

This kind of leader is precisely what China wants to see in Taiwan. Xi has made several statements to this effect, and in March, he said that the “1992 consensus” is the foundation for political exchanges between the two sides, adding that “without a solid foundation, the earth will shake and mountains will move.”

Then in the meeting with Chu, Xi emphasized that without recognition of the “1992 consensus,” there will be no prospect for peace and development. This is a matter of setting preconditions based on an imaginary foundation. Such verbal threats from China are equivalent to gangster’s logic.

“Gangster’s logic,” as defined by Chinese online encyclopedia Baidu Baike, is an incoherent and illogical mode of thinking. Call it rogue or thug logic. For gangsters, logic is another word for armed force. To reason with gangsters requires strength greater than theirs; otherwise, no matter how reasonable an argument, it will fail to defeat gangster logic.

In this regard, Taiwan needs to toughen up and start by opposing the politicians and political parties that force the “1992 consensus” upon the public. In recent years, young people have shown that they are wising up, saying: “If the KMT does not fall, Taiwan will.”

Translated by Zane Kheir

This story has been viewed 3699 times.

Comments will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned.

TOP top