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
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