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.
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