The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have been defending their respective “1992 consensus” and “Taiwan consensus” in the media. Listening to their arguments over which is better and the invective they hurl at their opponents, both sides seem to have lost any patience for rational dialogue. To remind the two parties that they should promote national interests, we propose the following views:
First, the KMT’s so-called “1992 consensus” is an international consensus, while the DPP’s “Taiwan consensus” is a domestic consensus, and as such, they cannot be compared directly. The former is an international (or cross-strait) consensus reached by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party. A clear cross-strait consensus had not taken shape during the DPP’s eight-year rule. The “Taiwan consensus” would be a domestic consensus aimed at including voters, the legislature, the executive branch, political parties and vested-interest groups. Since one is international and the other domestic, the level and participants are different. Hence, they cannot be compared to each other.
Second, whether international or domestic, consensuses evolve with time and changing conditions. In particular, a cross-strait consensus will change as the strengths of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait rise and fall or participants change.
Take the KMT, for example. Its interpretations of the “1992 consensus” back in 1992 and after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to power in 2008 have been slightly ambiguous and different. Meanwhile, the DPP might be unable to reach a cross-strait consensus at the moment, but that does not mean it could not reach a consensus in the future. As for domestic consensuses, they normally vary according to whether the ruling party enjoys an absolute legislative majority. Therefore, a “Taiwan consensus” would change depending on the results of presidential and legislative elections.
Third, regardless of whether we’re talking about an international or a domestic consensus, there should never be only one consensus. There should be several consensuses based on the different topics at hand. For example, in terms of domestic consensuses, in addition to a democratic consensus, there are consensuses regarding national defense, environmental protection, health insurance and social welfare.
As for a cross-strait consensus, in addition to the political issue, there are also consensuses on trade, communications, finance, healthcare and many other aspects. The advantage of issue-oriented, multilayered consensuses is that a lack of agreement on one of the aspects would not affect the formation of agreement on another.
Fourth, national interests exist on the common ground shared by international and domestic consensuses. Therefore, taking an international consensus into consideration while ignoring a domestic consensus falls short of domestic expectations and might damage the national interest. On the contrary, putting too much focus on a domestic consensus while ignoring an international consensus might hurt a country’s chances of boosting the overall national interest because of excessively high domestic expectations.
The KMT and the DPP need to realize that, in the face of China’s growing strength, balancing the complementary international and domestic consensuses to maximize the national interest would be the best tactic for incumbent and future leaders.
Yuan Hao-lin is a professor in the Graduate Institute of National Policy and Public Affairs at National Chung Hsing University. Shen Tsan-hung is a doctoral candidate in the university’s Graduate Institute of International Politics.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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 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
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95
RSS