While Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was visiting China, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and KMT Vice Chairman Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) took a high-profile approach to provide a political definition of the so-called “1992 consensus.”
However, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who directed the 1992 cross-strait talks, emphasized that there is no such thing as the “1992 consensus” and denounced it as “a bunch of nonsense.”
The “1992 consensus,” a term former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmaker Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000 when he was head of the Mainland Affairs Council, refers to a tacit 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.
The Ma administration’s adherence to China’s imaginary “1992 consensus” — which sets the tone for a globally recognized “one China,” implying that it means the People’s Republic of China — does not only ignore historical facts, but is tantamount to the destruction of the Republic of China (ROC).
This year, for example, when Ma went to Singapore to pay his respects to former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀), China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Taiwan Affairs Office immediately played on the “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle, effectively turning Ma into a private traveler. Not only is the ROC invisible at international events, Ma can not even join a memorial service.
There are many examples of how the so-called “1992 consensus” is destroying the ROC internationally and seriously harming Taiwanese. In the 2013 Kuang Ta Hsing fishing boat case, when members of the Philippine Coast Guard opened fire, killing a Taiwanese fisherman, the Philippine government declined to apologize and provide compensation on the grounds of the “one China” principle.
At the Venice Film Festival in 2011, the Taiwanese movie Seediq Bale had its listed country of production changed to “Taiwan, China,” and the Ma administarion was unable to object to the change as it was constrained by the “1992 consensus.”
That same year, the Philippine government deported a Taiwanese suspect to China to stand trial, disrespecting Taiwan’s judicial sovereignty and human rights in the process. When the Ma government demanded an apology, the Philippine government firmly refused to issue one under the “one China” principle.
In 2010, the WHO recognized Taiwan as a province of China and rejected its request to join the World Health Assembly meeting as an observer; based on the “1992 consensus,” Ma had little choice but to bite the bullet.
In 2008, when addressing issues of compensation for the scandal over Chinese melamine-tainted milk powder, the Ma government signed the cross-strait food safety agreement with China based on the “1992 consensus.” However, Taiwanese were restricted by the “one China” principle and could not file transnational litigation. Even now, the claimants have nowhere to turn, and Taiwanese companies that suffered from the scandal have not received any compensation.
As Ma repeats China’s imaginary “1992 consensus,” he is pushing the “one China” framework on Taiwan and destroying the ROC internationally. Over the past seven years, this has caused tangible damage to Taiwan and its people. No wonder Lee Teng-hui sees it as “a bunch of nonsense.”
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer.
Translated by Zane Kheir
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS