Young master Eric Chu (朱立倫), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) chairman, who also became the party’s presidential candidate by putting an end to the candidacy of Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), has begun to issue threats, saying, absurdly, that it would be “provocative” if Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) decided not to recognize the so-called “1992 consensus.”
However, the real provocation — and betrayal — of the people of Taiwan is the fact that Chu does not offer a clear and unambiguous explanation of the meaning of the “1992 consensus,” which former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have built in collusion with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The inside story that Lien and Ma revealed to the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) confirms that the “1992 consensus” is nothing more than an illegal secret agreement between the KMT and the CCP.
On Feb. 12, 2007, Lien told Stephen Young, who at the time was serving as AIT director, that if the KMT’s candidate were to win the presidential election the following year, their most important task would be stabilizing cross-strait relations.
Lien also said that although cross-strait dialogue was based on the “1992 consensus,” Beijing understood that a majority of Taiwanese wanted to maintain the “status quo.”
When Young asked Lien whether the KMT was concerned that Beijing might redefine the “1992 consensus” and that this could prove disadvantageous for Taiwan, Lien responded by saying that Beijing trusted the KMT, adding that the two sides had already secretly agreed on a definition that was acceptable to both sides and that would not change.
On Nov. 30 the same year, Ma told Young that the concept that there is “one China, different interpretations” was very close to Beijing’s “1992 consensus” and could be used as the foundation for quickly initiating cross-strait talks.
In a leaked cable, Young quoted former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起) as saying that, when making public statements, Ma deliberately mixed up the use of “1992 consensus” and “one China, different interpretations” in order to blur the differences and build a bridge for dialogue.
When AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt met with Ma on Dec. 9 that year, Ma said that the view that there is “one China, different interpretations” and the “1992 consensus” are crucial factors to any cross-strait dialogue.
When Burghardt pointed out that China might think that “different interpretations” could mean that Taiwan would move toward independence, Ma claimed that the KMT would provide China with guarantees that its representation of the “1992 consensus” was firmly opposed to independence.
Chu considers himself to sit at the very core of the KMT leadership, and he has secretly divulged many secrets to the US regarding the power struggles inside the KMT’s upper echelons.
Could it really be that he does not understand that the KMT’s “1992 consensus” is such a shady piece of work that it cannot be revealed to the public?
He must honestly explain the definition that has been agreed during opaque negotiations that have been going on between the KMT and the CCP, and stop dreaming that he will be able to force the public into accepting the two parties’ conspiracy to sell out Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath