Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) speech on Wednesday marking the 40th anniversary of a 1979 policy statement that paved the way for cross-strait interactions contained few surprises. It was riddled with the usual elements: talk of a unification dream and the threat of force.
However, there was one surprise that could throw the pan-blue camp off its game, which was Xi’s inclusion of “national unification” as part of his definition of the so-called “1992 consensus.” The lack of an immediate response from the pan-blue camp to that part of the speech reeked of cowardice.
For years, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — and sometimes its spin-off People First Party (PFP) — have tried to sell the “1992 consensus” to Taiwanese, painting it as some sort of a magic concoction that can solve every problem that divides Taiwan and China.
They have argued that the “consensus” is the only framework that allows the continuation of the Republic of China (ROC), and some wiggle room for Taiwan to maintain its international presence and the cross-strait “status quo.”
Unfortunately, not only did Xi fail to validate the KMT’s oft-stated argument that the “1992 consensus” permits both sides of the Taiwan Strait to have their own interpretation of what “China” means — under the umbrella that there is only “one China” — he also took the liberty of adding new elements to the “consensus” to bend it to his liking.
Were it not for the KMT and its long-term campaign to sugarcoat the fact that the “1992 consensus” is pretty much a synonym for Beijing’s “one China” principle, the “consensus” would not have had a market in Taiwan, and would certainly not have been blindly embraced by some voters who naively equate the “consensus” with no-strings-attached economic prosperity and maintenance of the cross-strait “status quo.”
Now that the pan-blue camp’s endorsement of the “1992 consensus” has locked Taiwan into a political dead-end, where accepting Beijing’s “one country, two systems” arrangement seems to be the only path, it was sad to see that KMT headquarters did not immediately defend its stance on Wednesday after convening an internal meeting with its Mainland Affairs Department, instead staying quiet as Xi redefined the “consensus.”
That said, here are three possible ways the KMT could revamp its approach to the “1992 consensus”:
First, the party could stick to its previous rhetoric, maintaining that the “consensus” gives both sides room for their own interpretations of what “China” means, even though to do so would be to lie to itself and ask its supporters to do the same.
Second, it could gradually get rid of the “1992 consensus” without much explanation and instead only call for peaceful development of relations.
The third possibility, albeit the least likely, is that the KMT could call Xi out on unilaterally making unification part of the “1992 consensus” and do so every time the Chinese leader or his government officials attempt to force their definition on Taiwan again.
Based on the KMT headquarters’ delayed response to Xi’s remarks, it seems that it has chosen a combination of the first and third approach. Regardless of its response, the one thing it should stop doing is turning a blind eye to Beijing’s true agenda because it wants to beat the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) at the ballot box. That is not only short-sighted, but also irresponsible.
It should bear in mind that if both sides of the Strait were united, the KMT would also be on Beijing’s list of things to destroy under its one-party system, along with the rule of law and Taiwan’s democratic way of life.
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