When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Jan. 2 linked the so-called “1992 consensus” to “one China” and the “one country, two systems” model, it reduced it to nothing but a means of self-comfort and self-deception.
Regrettably, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) issued a hackneyed response and played word games in an attempt to avoid embarrassment, instead of facing the challenge head on.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and former New Taipei City mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫), both former KMT chairmen, as well as KMT Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), exclude “one country, two systems” from the “1992 consensus” in a bid to prove its legitimacy and have said that “one country, two systems” was added by Xi and is not part of it.
This logic has been part of the KMT’s concept of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” for more than two decades. KMT officials recognize “one China” while in China and then embrace “different interpretations” when they return home, adapting their position to who they are talking to.
How can they continue this approach after Xi’s speech?
As Xi destroyed the “1992 consensus,” perhaps the KMT should demand a direct confrontation with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), rather than continue to force Taiwanese to accept a nonexistent “consensus.”
However, judging from the KMT’s separation of the “one country, two systems” formula from the “1992 consensus,” it is evident that it also opposes “one China, two systems,” which is in line with mainstream Taiwanese opinion.
On closer scrutiny, why is there a need for two systems in one country, and how can one country contain two systems?
Then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) promised that “horse races will go on and night clubs will stay open” in Hong Kong after the 1997 handover, although what Hong Kongers really want is for the two systems to protect their freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law — four components missing in China. How can Beijing possibly guarantee something that it does not even have itself?
The owner of Causeway Bay Books disappeared, Hong Kongers are deprived of their rights to political participation and songs by Anthony Wong (黃耀明) and lyrics by Albert Leung (林夕) are banned. Such practices — common in China — are happening in Hong Kong, too.
A farm woman in the countryside prepared a banquet for some city people, who complained about flies over the food. When the woman heard the complaint, she said that the guests were too stingy, because flies do not eat much.
For China — the farm woman — there is no need to make a fuss about such trifling matters as arresting a book dealer, imprisoning a few people or banning a few CDs. After all, everyone else is doing perfectly fine.
Thus, “one country, two systems” is but a gateway to “one country, one system.” China is large enough to hold its prey in its mouth without swallowing it whole. People might be able to live in its mouth and believe that there are two systems in one country, but Beijing will start chewing sooner or later. It would be too late when the pain hits as it becomes clear that there was only ever one system.
The same logic applies to moving from the “1992 consensus” to “one China” and “one country, two systems” — and to invitations to participate in democratic talks. There are many such gateways — they are all deceptions and could close at any time. Let the wise person beware if an invitation is made to enter.
Lai Jwei-chin is a freelance writer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under