Every time the Democratic Progressive Party government suffers a diplomatic setback or belittlement of Taiwan’s sovereign standing internationally as a result of Chinese sabotage, pan-blue camp politicians are quick to blame the government, urging it to adhere to the so-called “1992 consensus.”
As soon as it was announced on Tuesday last week that Taiwan had severed ties with El Salvador because it intended to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) urged President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration “to seriously reconsider recognizing the 1992 consensus to avoid a snowball effect on Taiwan’s other diplomatic allies.”
Is the “consensus,” touted by the KMT as an understanding reached with Beijing that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means, really the remedy for Taiwan’s diplomatic problem?
Sadly, history has proved otherwise: If Beijing has agreed to both sides having their own interpretation of what “one China” means, as the pan-blup camp claims, why does it relentlessly seek to stifle the Republic of China’s (ROC) international space?
During his presidency, Ma made the “1992 consensus” the backbone of his cross-strait policy, but that did not stop China from poaching Gambia as an ally in 2013 or from incessantly trying to obstruct and downgrade the ROC’s presence on the international stage.
The truth is that there is no “consensus” as far as Beijing is concerned: It would never accept each side of the Strait having its own interpretation of what “China” means, because that would be tantamount to it accepting that there are two “Chinas.” The consensus is nothing but a “one China” poison pill.
The KMT and those trumpeting the “1992 consensus” need to look no further than a statement made by Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) on Tuesday last week as evidence that China does not recognize each side of the Taiwan Strait having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
Praising El Salvador’s decision to “recognize that there is one China in the world,” Wang said: “This further goes to show the ‘one China’ policy is in line with international norms, is the correct choice... and is the basis of China’s relations with any country.”
El Salvador’s departure not only proves again how self-deceiving the KMT has been with its fictional “consensus,” but also, sadly, suggests that it suffers from a heavy case of Stockholm syndrome: Rather than chiding China for its bullying and suppression of Taiwan’s international space, it demands that Taiwan concur with Beijing’s terms.
Beijing is globally and aggressively promoting its interpretation of “one China.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Sunday said that the Chinese embassy in Spain in October last year pressured the University of Salamanca into canceling a Taiwanese cultural event, and demanded that the school accept its “one China” principle and take measures to “avoid and eliminate the adverse effects.”
The Tsai administration deserves praise for standing firm, and refusing to compromise and accept a non-existent “consensus” that only serves China’s political agenda of diminishing the ROC’s sovereign standing and drawing Taiwan closer toward unification with China.
As for the KMT, its leaders should come to terms with reality, ditch the fictitious “consensus” for good and begin to stand on the side of truth to defend the nation’s dignity.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers