Fri, Feb 14, 2020 - Page 8 News List

Putting the lie to ‘1992 consensus’

By Jerome Keating

Would it be to jettison the CCP’s 1949 constitution and replace it with the KMT’s 1947 version? Or would the KMT first restore the name “Republic of China” and ditch the “People’s Republic of China?”

How would the KMT treat Tibet and Xinjiang? Would it release all CCP political prisoners?

How would the KMT handle Hong Kong? Would it be a special administrative region? What form of government would the KMT want Hong Kong to have? Or would it just meld Hong Kong into the democratic whole of China?

Where would the KMT place the capital of its “one China”? Would it be in Beijing, Nanjing, or even remote Taipei?

Would the KMT quickly declare that all of China is a democracy? It would have to remember that in Taiwan’s democracy, it has regularly been voted out of office by the DPP. That would certainly make it wince.

If the KMT would make China a democracy, how many parties would it allow? Would it allow the CCP to continue to exist despite its obvious, distinct numerical advantage and ability to vote the KMT into oblivion?

Or would the KMT choose to have a “temporary” one-party state, followed by a period of democratic tutelage like it did in China’s 1930s?

What about internal reforms? Would the KMT have a timeline for reforms? Would it still face up to giving back its stolen state assets in Taiwan? Would it continue Taiwan’s transitional justice? Or would all that be swept under the rug of unnecessary “past history?”

What would be the place of Taiwan in the KMT’s vision of “one China?” Would it simply be relegated to being one of China’s many provinces?

Add to these questions the fact that in the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan surrendered Taiwan, but it never stated a recipient. The treaty allows democratic Taiwan to claim its own post colonial right to self-determination by the UN’s rules.

Would the KMT allow that?

Finally, there are deeper paradigmatic roots and imagined communities in all of this. The absurdity of these questions exposes how all along the KMT has been a diaspora, a government in exile.

Further, this indicates that the 1911 Xinhai revolution was more about Han people smarting under the centuries of Manchu rule. It was not about democracy, but simply to take territorial power and privilege from the Manchus.

Why were Tibet and Xinjiang never granted their own right to democratic choice to break free as Mongolia eventually did?

This is the reality, which stands in opposition to the falsely professed Han ideals. It is a more correct way by which the past century needs to be viewed.

The KMT old guard, like the CCP, has always allowed power, wealth and privilege to trump any of its beliefs in democracy.

Su coined the term “1992 consensus” in 2000, when the KMT lost Taiwan’s presidency for the first time in a free democratic vote; it is a term that allows the KMT to kowtow and return to China.

The above questions are key to demonstrating the absurdity of the KMT old guard’s claim of “one China with different interpretations.”

These questions should be put to any candidate for KMT chairperson, especially if they espouse the fiction of the “1992 consensus.” In the end, this might be the wake-up call that the KMT needs.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top