Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians and the Chinese government have been stressing the importance of the so-called “1992 consensus,” but this might just be a sign that the KMT has no good cards to play, as a recent opinion poll showed that it did not appear to be a major concern for most voters.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said last month that maintaining the “status quo” would be her China policy, while at the same time declining to recognize the “1992 consensus,” which is an alleged understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge that there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
Meanwhile, several KMT politicians, including Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫), former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), Presidential Office spokesperson Charles Chen (陳以信), Mainland Affairs Council Minister Andrew Hsia (夏立言) and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), have stressed the importance of the “1992 consensus.” Moreover, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has echoed KMT leaders by reiterating that the “1992 consensus” is the key to cross-strait exchanges.
In response to the criticism, Tsai said that they do not understand what Taiwanese really care about, and public sentiment seems to back her up.
On Wednesday, at almost the same time as Ma was criticizing Tsai’s cross-strait agenda, the Taiwan Brain Trust released a series of opinion poll results, showing that 74.1 percent of people support Tsai’s China policy, 51.2 percent are confident that the DPP would be able to maintain peace across the Taiwan Strait, 68 percent believe that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent state and 52.2 percent — 59.3 percent of whom are working in China or have relatives working in China — said that the DPP should not accept the “1992 consensus.”
The poll also indicated that most people believe domestic affairs, such as economic development and social justice, are the most important issues for next year’s presidential election, while cross-strait relations ranked only as the fourth-most important issue.
In addition, on Thursday, poll results released by Taiwan Indicators Survey Research showed that 56.9 percent of people regard cross-strait relations as “state-to-state” relations. The poll results seem to support Tsai’s policies regarding relations with China.
Ideas about developing cross-strait relations in the minds of KMT leaders, especially Ma, differ from the public’s. For the KMT, cross-strait relations are a nationalistic issue: It is about the “Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait” belonging to one big family, and that they must eventually be unified. However, most Taiwanese voters are concerned about cross-strait relations because they do not want a war with China, and they believe that peaceful and stable cross-strait relations might help bring some economic benefits.
Ma was elected president seven years ago after promising that he would bring about economic prosperity by developing cross-strait relations. He has obviously failed to fulfill his promise. Voters gave the KMT a chance, but the KMT failed to keep its word, and now many people are turning to the DPP.
No matter how Tsai tries to explain the DPP’s position, voters know that the party is more pro-independence, while the KMT is more in favor of unification. The KMT still does not know what the problem is, and tries to attract the public with its tired political ideology. If the KMT continues to campaign along these weary lines, it will surely get found out at next year’s legislative elections.
The small Baltic nation of Lithuania last week announced that it would accept a Taiwanese representative office in its capital, Vilnius, and that it would establish its own trade office in Taiwan by the end of the year. This was more than a welcome announcement to Taiwan and goes far beyond the normal establishment of trade relations. Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabrielius Landsbergis summed it up succinctly, boldly saying: “Freedom-loving people should look out for each other.” With these words, Landsbergis was purposefully going beyond normal diplomacy; he was also presenting a moral challenge and reminder to other democratic nations. A look
On a peaceful day in the open Pacific Ocean to the east of Taiwan, a US carrier and five accompanying warships were slowly sailing to guard the western Pacific. Another carrier battle group had just returned to its home port in San Diego. Suddenly, alarms went off as many intercontinental ballistic missiles were launched from the interior of China, flying toward Taiwan. Numerous Chinese warships, carriers, fighter jets, bombers and submarines were fast converging on the US ships. Not too long after, missiles, bombs and torpedoes were fired at the US carrier. The surprise to Americans was the number of
I was a bit startled last week when Legislative Yuan Speaker You Si-kun (游錫堃) suggested that the United States could extend official recognition to an independent Taiwan if China were to launch an invasion. While I think Speaker You is correct, I am not sure it is a helpful point of view. Naturally, there are contingency plans in Washington on diplomatic actions that could deter Chinese military action, but they contemplate the continuity of a democratic Taiwanese government that could survive offshore in exile if part or all of Taiwan is occupied by communist Chinese forces. China’s threat that “Taiwan
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) unscheduled visit to Tibet on July 20 attracted extensive international attention. Although Chinese media said that Xi’s visit was meant to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the accession of Tibet to China, Tibet has remained a politically charged issue for China as well as the international community. The genesis of the turbulent ties between Tibet and China dates back to 1951, when the Chinese regime annexed Tibet through a seven-point agreement. China has used this agreement as proof of its sovereignty over Tibet. Tibetans argue that they were forced to sign the agreement, leading them