Young master Eric Chu (朱立倫), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) chairman, who also became the party’s presidential candidate by putting an end to the candidacy of Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), has begun to issue threats, saying, absurdly, that it would be “provocative” if Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) decided not to recognize the so-called “1992 consensus.”
However, the real provocation — and betrayal — of the people of Taiwan is the fact that Chu does not offer a clear and unambiguous explanation of the meaning of the “1992 consensus,” which former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) have built in collusion with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The inside story that Lien and Ma revealed to the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) confirms that the “1992 consensus” is nothing more than an illegal secret agreement between the KMT and the CCP.
On Feb. 12, 2007, Lien told Stephen Young, who at the time was serving as AIT director, that if the KMT’s candidate were to win the presidential election the following year, their most important task would be stabilizing cross-strait relations.
Lien also said that although cross-strait dialogue was based on the “1992 consensus,” Beijing understood that a majority of Taiwanese wanted to maintain the “status quo.”
When Young asked Lien whether the KMT was concerned that Beijing might redefine the “1992 consensus” and that this could prove disadvantageous for Taiwan, Lien responded by saying that Beijing trusted the KMT, adding that the two sides had already secretly agreed on a definition that was acceptable to both sides and that would not change.
On Nov. 30 the same year, Ma told Young that the concept that there is “one China, different interpretations” was very close to Beijing’s “1992 consensus” and could be used as the foundation for quickly initiating cross-strait talks.
In a leaked cable, Young quoted former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起) as saying that, when making public statements, Ma deliberately mixed up the use of “1992 consensus” and “one China, different interpretations” in order to blur the differences and build a bridge for dialogue.
When AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt met with Ma on Dec. 9 that year, Ma said that the view that there is “one China, different interpretations” and the “1992 consensus” are crucial factors to any cross-strait dialogue.
When Burghardt pointed out that China might think that “different interpretations” could mean that Taiwan would move toward independence, Ma claimed that the KMT would provide China with guarantees that its representation of the “1992 consensus” was firmly opposed to independence.
Chu considers himself to sit at the very core of the KMT leadership, and he has secretly divulged many secrets to the US regarding the power struggles inside the KMT’s upper echelons.
Could it really be that he does not understand that the KMT’s “1992 consensus” is such a shady piece of work that it cannot be revealed to the public?
He must honestly explain the definition that has been agreed during opaque negotiations that have been going on between the KMT and the CCP, and stop dreaming that he will be able to force the public into accepting the two parties’ conspiracy to sell out Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
China’s third aircraft carrier, the Fujian, entered service this week after a commissioning ceremony in China’s Hainan Province on Wednesday last week. Chinese state media reported that the Fujian would be deployed to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea and the western Pacific. It seemed that the Taiwan Strait being one of its priorities meant greater military pressure on Taiwan, but it would actually put the Fujian at greater risk of being compromised. If the carrier were to leave its home port of Sanya and sail to the East China Sea or the Yellow Sea, it would have to transit the
The artificial intelligence (AI) boom, sparked by the arrival of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, took the world by storm. Within weeks, everyone was talking about it, trying it and had an opinion. It has transformed the way people live, work and think. The trend has only accelerated. The AI snowball continues to roll, growing larger and more influential across nearly every sector. Higher education has not been spared. Universities rushed to embrace this technological wave, eager to demonstrate that they are keeping up with the times. AI literacy is now presented as an essential skill, a key selling point to attract prospective students.
RSS