In his retirement speech to the US Congress, US Army general Douglas MacArthur is remembered for quoting the well-known line from an old US Army ballad: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.”
However, when it comes to old politicians in Taiwan, that same line neither applies nor holds true. Instead of fading away, they continually try to find ways to stay in the game.
One recent example is former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) speech at a seminar on national security.
First, Ma had his usual laundry list of reasons why President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was doing a bad job: She relied too much on the US for Taiwan’s security; she lost too many of diplomatic allies; she let talks with the US on bilateral trade falter, etc.
However, and more important, at the heart of Ma’s discourse was how he once again felt obligated to drag out the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) canard, the so-called “1992 consensus.”
He further took issue with Tsai’s refusal to recognize all the “special ties and agreements” that the KMT claimed to have established with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1992.
It is common knowledge that in 2006 former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted that he made up this fictitious phrase and claim in 2000. And yet, Ma, as if ironically trying to bring a dead horse back to life, continues to chastise Tsai for not accepting this lie.
There is no need to go through all the details on how the only real agreements made in 1992 were that the two governments on each side of the Taiwan Strait agreed to recognize the other’s university degrees and to allow letters, correspondence and other materials to be exchanged.
That said, what is more important for Taiwanese is to ask why Su felt obligated to fabricate this claim, especially when it was eight years after the alleged fact?
Then, they must further ask why do Ma and so many of the KMT continue to try to propagate Su’s fabrication?
In answer to the first, 2000 was the first time that the KMT lost the presidency. Democratic Progressive Party candidate Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) won after the KMT’s then-vice president Lien Chan (連戰) and independent James Soong (宋楚瑜) split the KMT vote.
It was with that loss that the KMT sensed that the hand was writing on the wall and that it was losing its claim for any future legitimacy in Taiwan.
The KMT needed its version of the “Donation of Constantine,” a famous middle-age forgery by which the Roman papacy claimed spiritual and territorial power from the 4th-century Roman Emperor Constantine. Su provided that fake legitimacy with the “1992 consensus.”
The next question is more difficult and probing. If the claim to the “1992 consensus” is false, why then do the KMT and Ma, in particular, keep insisting on this falsehood? This answer has several parts.
The basis of the fake consensus is that both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only “one China.” They differ only in that each side has its interpretation of what that “China” means and who is its legitimate ruler.
Essential to each side’s interpretation is that Taiwan is simply a province of China no matter who rules it.
The KMT makes the further claim that the reason for its agreeing with the PRC that there is only “one China” along with Taiwan as part of that “one China” is that this keeps the PRC from declaring war on Taiwan. That claim is false.
The PRC does of course threaten war if Taiwan mentions independence, as it threatens sanctions and war in its usual bully fashion whenever it wants to get its way.
Its generals have even at times threatened to bomb the US west coast. What really keeps the PRC from declaring war is more its concern that the cost might be too great and which countries, like the US or Japan, might support Taiwan.
Further, even if there were a promise to avoid war, the situation in Hong Kong has revealed that the PRC does not keep its promises. It only bides its time weighing its strength and any advantages and opportunities.
However, there is more here than simply PRC threats and promises.
Taiwanese should first review the changing KMT presidential attitudes toward the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
During the one-party reign of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), the KMT conducted regular covert military operations against the CCP. During the rule of Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), there were three noes: no contact, no compromise and no negotiations.
Under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), change came and there was Lee’s “special state-to-state” model of relations.” Finally, Ma came up with his own “three noes”: no declaration of independence, no unification and no use of force — an apparent bland, do-nothing statement.
Why then, would Ma support the fake “1992 consensus?”
It is in the fakery that the separate and more hidden reasons behind Ma and the KMT’s support of this consensus are exposed.
If the KMT can limit Taiwan to being a province of “one China,” no matter who rules it, then the KMT can legitimize many of its past atrocities, which were done to deny Taiwanese any claim to independent sovereignty.
A sovereign Taiwan has always been possible under the UN’s principle of self-determination, but the KMT has always denied it.
Return to the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed seven years after the end of World War II. That treaty only stated that Japan would surrender Taiwan; it never stated any recipient, even though the KMT, like a squatter, had occupied Taiwan. That has always left the option that by self-determination the Taiwanese could claim their own territory.
If Taiwanese have a right to their own territory, and the KMT does not, it then follows that all the acts that the KMT perpetrated from the 228 Incident on through the White Terror and Martial Law era were illegitimate.
The KMT must be further recognized as a government-in-exile. The KMT refugees are diaspora, driven from China after losing the Chinese Civil War. In short, they are the beggars that took over the temple of Taiwan.
More follows. The Republic of China Constitution and name must be changed. They are false credentials imposed on Taiwanese. Stolen state assets must be returned. Transitional justice must be carried out. All this will take time, but it must first be fully acknowledged and restoration begun.
This is the bitter truth behind the fake “1992 consensus” that denies this to Taiwan and which delegates it to being a province of China.
Therefore, it is important for Taiwanese to continually ask Ma and the rest of the KMT why they support the fake “1992 consensus?” What is Ma’s real interpretation of “one China” and how does Taiwan fit into that picture?
Ma and the KMT are feathering their own future nest in dealing with the CCP. They would rather consort with the enemy as then-Zhejiang Province governor Chen Yi (陳儀) did than stand up for Taiwan’s rightful claim to sovereignty.
There is one additional deeper answer here. To admit that the consensus is a lie, Ma would also have to admit to the decades of KMT deception and pillage. That would leave him totally out of the game of Taiwan’s politics.
Hong Kong has shown the true face of the CCP, where just like Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) deceptive slogan, “let 100 flowers bloom,” and the eventual murders at Tiananmen Square revealed: The CCP only accepts a one-party autocratic state.
Further, Taiwanese must realize that it was the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” and not Taiwanese that were tossed out of the UN back in 1971. If Taiwan wants to get back into the UN, it must do so under a different name, one that demonstrates that Taiwanese are not the followers of Chiang Kai-shek.
Therefore the basic question returns: How do Ma and the KMT interpret “one China” and in that interpretation, do they see Taiwan as a province of China?
Ma will no doubt continue to beat the dead horse of the “1992 consensus,” but it is time for Taiwanese to recognize that all dead horses and parties must be buried. The coming election is the best time to begin that process.
Jerome Keating is a writer based in Taipei.
The government and local industries breathed a sigh of relief after Shin Kong Life Insurance Co last week said it would relinquish surface rights for two plots in Taipei’s Beitou District (北投) to Nvidia Corp. The US chip-design giant’s plan to expand its local presence will be crucial for Taiwan to safeguard its core role in the global artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem and to advance the nation’s AI development. The land in dispute is owned by the Taipei City Government, which in 2021 sold the rights to develop and use the two plots of land, codenamed T17 and T18, to the
Taiwan’s first case of African swine fever (ASF) was confirmed on Tuesday evening at a hog farm in Taichung’s Wuci District (梧棲), trigging nationwide emergency measures and stripping Taiwan of its status as the only Asian country free of classical swine fever, ASF and foot-and-mouth disease, a certification it received on May 29. The government on Wednesday set up a Central Emergency Operations Center in Taichung and instituted an immediate five-day ban on transporting and slaughtering hogs, and on feeding pigs kitchen waste. The ban was later extended to 15 days, to account for the incubation period of the virus
The ceasefire in the Middle East is a rare cause for celebration in that war-torn region. Hamas has released all of the living hostages it captured on Oct. 7, 2023, regular combat operations have ceased, and Israel has drawn closer to its Arab neighbors. Israel, with crucial support from the United States, has achieved all of this despite concerted efforts from the forces of darkness to prevent it. Hamas, of course, is a longtime client of Iran, which in turn is a client of China. Two years ago, when Hamas invaded Israel — killing 1,200, kidnapping 251, and brutalizing countless others
Art and cultural events are key for a city’s cultivation of soft power and international image, and how politicians engage with them often defines their success. Representative to Austria Liu Suan-yung’s (劉玄詠) conducting performance and Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen’s (盧秀燕) show of drumming and the Tainan Jazz Festival demonstrate different outcomes when politics meet culture. While a thoughtful and professional engagement can heighten an event’s status and cultural value, indulging in political theater runs the risk of undermining trust and its reception. During a National Day reception celebration in Austria on Oct. 8, Liu, who was formerly director of the
RSS