With the November nine-in-one elections a scant four months away, voters will have many questions to put to the candidates.
However, there is also a national question that should be asked: “What is your position on and/or your interpretation of the so-called ‘1992 consensus?’”
That might seem a strange question, since voters traditionally ask about each candidate’s platform, but there is merit here.
Everyone in Taiwan is familiar with the bogus “1992 consensus,” invented by then-Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2000.
It has been bandied about so repeatedly that it has become a household term, which makes it a good litmus test for anyone holding office, because it reflects each person’s concept of the imagined community that makes up Taiwan.
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) standard position is that the “1992 consensus” was an agreement between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) that there is only “one China,” with the PRC and ROC having different interpretations of what “China” means. Included in the KMT discourse is that both it and the PRC also agree that Taiwan is part of that “one China.”
Skip here the reality that the PRC has never accepted the KMT’s position that there can be two interpretations. That fact in itself denies any consensus.
For the PRC, there is only one position: There is one China under the PRC and Taiwan is a part of that one China.
Since there never was any consensus, this makes the question about the “1992 consensus” a clear way to separate the wheat from the chaff regarding the imagined community of Taiwan. It is a way for voters to find out just how Taiwan-centric a candidate is and much more.
No self-respecting Taiwanese would claim that the boundaries of their nation include any land in continental China, even if it remains in the outdated Constitution brought over from China. To make that claim is tantamount to saying that the KMT never lost the Chinese Civil War. This then leads to an examination of the true diaspora status of the KMT.
Review the timeline leading to the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Taiwan’s limbo status. World War II ended in August 1945 with Japan’s surrender. In China, the war between the KMT and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continued until the CCP’s victory and establishment of the PRC in 1949, when the KMT fled to Taiwan.
In 1951, 48 nations signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which went into effect in 1952. In the treaty, Japan gave up all rights to Taiwan, which it had gotten from the Qing Dynasty in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. The treaty never specified a recipient, leaving it open so that Taiwanese could be the sovereigns under the UN’s rules of self-determination.
Neither the KMT nor the CCP were invited to or participated in the signing. This means that the KMT in its flight to Taiwan was a “colonizing diaspora,” since the San Francisco treaty never ceded Taiwan to the KMT or the ROC.
In this context of ambiguity and with the reality of Taiwan’s democracy, it is appropriate to examine the extended six-point description of diaspora in a changing world posited by political scientist William Safran in his 1991 article “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return.”
In the article, which predates the “1992 consensus,” Safran suggests how Walker Connor’s traditional definition could be extended to fit other expatriate minority communities. He lists six potential shared characteristics that can be examined vis-a-vis the KMT.
“They [the diaspora] or their ancestors have been dispersed from a specific original center to two or more peripheral or foreign regions,” Safran wrote.
At the end of the Chinese Civil War, KMT members fled to Taiwan, Hong Kong, the US and several other places.
Second, these diaspora “retain a collective memory, vision or myth about their original homeland — its physical location, history and achievements,” he added.
Most streets and places in Taiwan were renamed to reflect the KMT’s homeland. Ask any Taiwanese born after 1950 how they had to memorize Chinese, not Taiwanese, history in school.
Third, the diaspora “believe that they are not — and perhaps cannot be — fully accepted by their host society and therefore feel partly alienated and insulated from it,” Safran wrote.
The minority KMT members and their weapons quickly insulated themselves by taking over Taiwan and instituting martial law and a one-party state to rule the majority Taiwanese.
Fourth, “they regard their ancestral homeland as their true, ideal home and as the place to which they or their descendants would or should return,” he said.
This needs little explanation, as many KMT members do not see Taiwan as their home, but still hope to return to China. Some have already retired there.
Fifth, they “believe that they should collectively be committed to the maintenance or restoration of their original homeland and to its safety and prosperity,” he wrote.
This reflects the KMT’s case for the “1992 consensus” and why it seeks unification.
Sixth, they “continue to relate, personally or vicariously, to that homeland in one way or another, and their ethno-communal consciousness and solidarity are importantly defined by the existence of such a relationship,” Safran added.
Again, little explanation is needed, as many KMT members see themselves as belonging to China.
Safran said such diaspora need not fit all six criteria, but surprisingly, many KMT members do.
However, this also presents the frame with which candidates in Taiwan must answer to their voters. Voters should know where each candidate stands vis-a-vis China, and this is what makes the “1992 consensus” a valid litmus test for candidates.
Support for such a consensus also raises the diaspora issue and has vast implications for moving more swiftly in executing transitional justice and the return of state assets from those in the “colonial diaspora.”
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs