During the eight years of his administration, the one political achievement that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has most enjoyed flaunting to the outside world is having improved Taiwan’s relationship with China, which Ma never fails to emphasize is a result of adhering to the so-called “1992 consensus.”
In reality, the side effects of this “consensus” have begun surfacing in front of the public eye one after the other. This includes Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) surprising reluctance to acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China (ROC), which is tantamount to renouncing national sovereignty.
Before leaving for Beijing to attend last week’s military parade, former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) said his visit was in accordance with the wishes of his fellow Taiwanese and would help improve reciprocity and respect between the two sides.As it happened, upon arriving in Beijing, Lien adjusted his view of history to suit that of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP): Instead of the eight-year Second Sino-Japanese War, Lien talked about “14 years of blood, sweat and tears,” which is the CCP’s official interpretation of the conflict.
During his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Lien, basing his remarks on the “1992 consensus,” said not only that the KMT and the CCP “jointly resisted” Japan, but also that “KMT forces led by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) fought ... on the front lines and the CCP forces led by Mao Zedong (毛澤東) ... fought behind enemy lines.”
He ended his remarks by saying that “China recovered Taiwan.”
Lien has sided with Beijing’s “one China” policy and cast aside the KMT and Ma’s policy of “one China, each side with its own interpretation.” This shows the true meaning of the “1992 consensus”: There is only “one China” and there can be no other interpretation. When Lien confirmed that he would accept Beijing’s invitation, Ma sent him a furious message, yet publicly, Ma simply said that it was “inappropriate.”
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) issued a woolly statement calling on Lien to “uphold the three principles,” which was completely ineffective.
The response from the blue camp stands in stark contrast to the vehement criticism of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), which included calls for Lee to be expelled from the party because of an interview he gave in Japan.
The imbroglio over the military parade has revealed the pro-China faction within the KMT to be non-homogenous. In fact, the faction can be divided into two groups.
First, there is the rapid unification group, represented by Hung, which is bent on unification with China and clings to a false historical interpretation of Chinese history.
The Hung faction, dancing to Beijing’s tune, came up with the phrase “one China, same interpretation” and has even praised Lien’s trip to China. This group is not just thoroughly ignorant, but beyond redemption.
The second group within the pro-China faction is led by Lien and is comprised of facilitators for Taiwanese corporations. This group holds a monopoly over the dividends of cross-strait trade. Having become the representative of the CCP in Taiwan, it takes orders from Beijing.
The CCP’s gargantuan military parade had the effect of holding up a mirror to the KMT and revealed the true nature of the party: outwardly harmonious, inwardly divided.
Following Lien and Xi’s rewriting of history in Beijing, a life-and-death struggle is about to take place within the inner circles of the pan-blue camp.
Jack Wu is an adjunct professor at National Hsinchu University of Education.
Translated by Edward Jones
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS