Supposedly, all political parties across the political spectrum, from independence to unification, would agree that democracy is the best weapon the nation has to resist China’s attempt to unite with Taiwan or force Taiwan to accept its terms of unification, but in practice, they tend to forget the golden rule.
A case in point was the suggestion former Mainland Affairs Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起) recently made that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should reassure China that it would not let its hawkish views dominate cross-strait relations if it regains power in 2016 by disavowing its aspiration for independence, because that is what Beijing cares about most.
Given the DPP’s stubborn position against the so-called “1992 consensus” — which refers to a tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese government that both sides of the Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means — the party might as well forget about the “1992 consensus” and go ahead and “renounce independence,” Su said.
Another case was the apparent olive branch DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) extended to Beijing that the party would be open to discussion about the “1992 consensus” as long as it is not listed as a prerequisite for talks.
It is intriguing to see how the results of the Nov. 29 elections — which reflected the public’s desire for change, arguably motivated by rising concern over the balance in cross-strait relations significantly tilting in China’s favor under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration — sparked a change of heart over the “1992 consensus” in Su.
Su, who has admitted he made up the “1992 consensus” before the KMT handed over power to the DPP in 2000, was close to conceding failure in his efforts to coin a term for both sides to make good use of ambiguity in sovereignty disputes and finding commonalities.
Tsai’s shift in attitude on the “1992 consensus” is also intriguing, because she has had a clear track record of denying it since 2000. A prominent example was when, serving as Mainland Affairs Council chairperson in June 2000, she negated the statement made by then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) at a meeting a day earlier with foreign guests that his government considered the formula “acceptable.”
Tsai, a likely DPP hopeful for the 2016 presidential election, appears to have become less rigid in her thinking about the “1992 consensus.” It clearly shows that she still sees her past refusal to accept the “1992 consensus” as a major roadblock that could again hinder her from traversing the “last mile” to the presidency, as it did in the 2012 presidential election.
If it were not for her chances of being elected in 2016 skyrocketing after the Nov. 29 elections, Tsai might not have fallen victim to political tunnel vision and attributed great significance to the “1992 consensus.”
In 2012, when Ma won re-election, he described the election result as a “victory for the 1992 consensus,” after which he was emboldened to be more assertive in his policy. If the 2012 poll was a “victory for the 1992 consensus,” last month’s elections showed that it is now deemed a flop.
Although on the surface the elections were not a referendum on the “1992 consensus,” because it was not as heatedly debated as it was in the 2012 presidential election, it was the overarching principle that framed the Ma administration’s China-centered policies on all fronts in the past six years, which obstructed the normalization of Taiwan as a country and development of commendable values to the point were voters overwhelmingly elected to change their government.
One of those values is that Taiwan engages China on equal footing without preconditions repudiating any political party that Beijing sees as undesirable. Tsai’s new approach has gone against the wishes of voters, and Su’s advice was a far cry from democracy.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS