The so-called “1992 consensus” was a verbal agreement between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It has already been shown that this agreement not only penalizes Taiwanese society; it is also playing a divisive role between different sectors in Taiwan.
The KMT regarded the so-called “1992 consensus” as an accomplishment when it was in power and, for a while, it did bring about some prosperity. The KMT would have been hard pushed to achieve the economic successes it did without Beijing’s support.
Having gorged itself on the best bits, the KMT left the crumbs for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Beijing is an expert at creating divisions between Taiwanese. It uses the “1992 consensus” as both a carrot and a stick, depending on what suits it at any given time.
As China becomes a highly capitalist country, the CCP is increasingly veering to the extreme right. Far-right fascism does not have to follow the logic of capitalism; nor does it have to respect the principles of democracy.
In terms of economic policies, the KMT has never come up with anything sustainable for the future. It just clings to Beijing for its political survival. The KMT’s policy has long been peddling deceptions, such as the “one China, different interpretations” to hoodwink Taiwanese.
To this day, Beijing has not made any comment on “one China, different interpretations.” When then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in November last year, Ma never once mentioned the Republic of China (ROC). Ma defended himself by claiming that he did mention the Constitution.
However, judging by the context of their conversation, Ma only quoted the Constitution to express his opposition to Taiwanese independence. He mentioned the Constitution in this way so that he could make himself more likable to Xi.
After President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was inaugurated in May, Beijing adopted a hardline stance, demanding that the Tsai administration recognize the “1992 consensus.”
The so-called consensus invalidates the existence of the ROC, pure and simple; the KMT just uses terms such as “one China, different interpretations” to deceive the public and, in so doing, gives Beijing the upper hand. The Tsai government clearly understands that a consensus that lacks written documentation to support its validity, as the “1992 consensus” does, is a political trap. Once you fall for it, you are doomed.
It is unreasonable to ask the DPP to bear the consequences of a deception manufactured by the KMT and the CCP. If it is Beijing’s belief that the “1992 consensus” should be acknowledged, Beijing should also recognize the existence of the ROC. Otherwise, “one China, different interpretations” is just a joke.
Criticizing Tsai for failing to thoroughly answer the question or castigating her for ignoring the “1992 consensus” is in no way pragmatic. If Beijing wants to interact with Taiwan, it has to open negotiations with the DPP and reach another consensus. After all, a consensus achieved by the KMT should not be the responsibility of the DPP.
Taiwanese voters have used their wisdom and votes to bring down the KMT. The public’s stance has been crystal clear: It cannot accept the lie that there is “one China, different interpretations.” The DPP took office with the public’s consent and so it cannot be ambivalent about Taiwan’s sovereignty, something the KMT used to do.
The meaning of power being in the hands of the public is quite clear. The public will is superior to any political party’s will; what the public chooses is a wise choice.
Beijing is using tourism as a political tool. When it wanted to endear itself to Taiwan, it sent hordes of Chinese tourists across the Taiwan Strait. Now it wants to penalize Taiwan, it has slashed the number of tourists allowed to visit. The Chinese public is just a tool of the CCP and tourism is just an extension of its control.
The tourism industry’s demand for Tsai’s recognition of the “1992 consensus” is tantamount to asking Taiwan to surrender to China. Taiwan’s transition of power signifies the principles of democracy. Tsai must not sacrifice Taiwanese democracy and give in to China, or the nation will lose 30 years of democratic achievement.
The “1992 consensus” is not what the DPP should be concerned about. What it should focus on is how to overcome adversity. The Ma administration was hijacked for eight years. If the DPP is going to allow itself to be caught in the same trap, why did we work so hard to achieve a democratic dream in the first place?
If Taiwanese want good things to happen, they should strive for them collectively, instead of passively accepting Beijing’s grace and control.
Chen Fang-ming is the director of the Graduate Institute of Taiwanese Literature at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS