End the word games
On July 30, former premier Simon Chang (張善政) said he has accepted Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential nominee Han Kuo-yu’s (韓國瑜) invitation to be convener of his national policy advisory team, but the post is unrelated to any future appointment.
He said he would recommend that the KMT stop making the “1992 consensus” its cross-strait stance, replacing it with the more neutral “constitutional one China, placing Taiwan first.”
He said that since the consensus has been stigmatized, it is almost equal to Beijing’s “one country, two systems.”
Chang obviously understands mainstream public opinion, and that the “1992 consensus” is an empty phrase that means different things to the KMT and Beijing in the lack of any consensus.
However, former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator Lin Cho-shui (林濁水) questioned whether keeping “one China” and abandoning “with each side having its own interpretation” is a return to the old “gentlemen and thieves cannot coexist” concept, and expressed concern that Chang does not understand the situation.
That might be going too far, but the lack of persuasiveness of “constitutional one China, placing Taiwan first” is indeed problematic.
Furthermore, it is evident that Beijing only accepts “one China,” and that this refers to the People’s Republic of China” (PRC).
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has always opposed or refused to recognize “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
Is there a “1992 consensus,” and who stigmatized the term? The answers is quite clear, and Chang cunningly bypassed such questions, failing to follow through.
Finally, “constitutional one China, placing Taiwan first” might sound reasonable at first, because it may convince or attract more moderate voters.
Nevertheless, “constitutional one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC), and it completely excludes the PRC.
Since it refers only to the ROC, its independence, sovereignty and system, its core values are the dignity of Taiwan and the interests of the Taiwanese; this is the government’s only focus, and there is no question of whether Taiwan should come first.
Instead of playing word games, why doesn’t Chang try to convince the public with a term that is easy to understand, such as “one China, one Taiwan,” “two equal Chinas independent of each other,” or “constitutional one China is Taiwan.”
If he did, perhaps he would get closer to reality and mainstream public opinion.
Chen An-wen
New Taipei City
No defender of democracy
US President Donald Trump is no great defender of democracy. His statement earlier last week that the situation in Hong Kong was a matter between China and Hong Kong was seen in China as a green light for military intervention.
Likewise, his administration is selling arms to Taiwan because, for the moment, it suits the strategic interests of the US, not because Taiwan is a democracy.
The US did Taiwan a great disservice during the presidency of Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) by preventing Taiwan developing a nuclear deterrent. Had the nuclear program proceeded, Taiwan and its democracy would now be in a position of relative security contra China.
The US has been content to observe the dwindling number of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies when it could have given the lead in according full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, a move which would have been followed by other nations.
The unwillingness of the US to accord recognition to Taiwan is the true litmus test of its sincerity.
Taiwan must take note of that fact and act accordingly.
Gavan Duffy
Queensland, Australia
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past