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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US