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
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