On March 21, singer-actress Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜) posted the following declaration on her Sina Weibo, Facebook and Instagram timelines: “I have always firmly believed that I am Chinese, and I firmly support the ‘one China’ principle.”
Her father, Ouyang Long (歐陽龍), spoke up for his daughter, saying: “No one in Taiwan could believe that I support Taiwanese independence. I am now a spokesman for the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT], and the KMT has always stuck to the basic line of the ‘1992 consensus,’ which says that there is only one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
He also blamed the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) for his daughter being forced by China to state her political standpoint, saying that this happened because the DPP had spoiled relations across the Taiwan Strait.
Some programs that Ouyang Nana appears in have been dropped from Chinese television stations over the past few months. This is said to be because of some things her father said as KMT spokesman, such as repeating former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) slogan of “no unification, no independence and no use of force,” and saying that “there is no consensus within the KMT regarding ‘one country, two systems.’”
These statements have been denounced as showing support for Taiwanese independence, and this has affected his daughter’s entertainment work in China.
Ouyang Long still blames the DPP and its supposed mishandling of cross-strait relations for his daughter’s exclusion from the airwaves. The interesting difference this time is that he did not criticize the DPP for not recognizing the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Why not, though? It must be because he is one of those pan-blue politicians who most keenly supports the “1992 consensus,” yet even his daughter is caught up in a witch hunt and is being accused of supporting Taiwanese independence.
What clearer proof could there be that the “1992 consensus” — in which both sides are supposed to have agreed that there is “one China, with each side having its own interpretation of what ‘China’ means” — actually never existed?
Just a short time before this incident, Xinhua news agency criticized President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for the things she has said about “preserving the ‘status quo.’”
Xinhua said that her statements have “two-states theory” undertones.
China’s official position has always been to stress the part of the “1992 consensus” that says there is only one China, with no mention of “each side having its own interpretation.” For China, there is no such thing as the Republic of China, nor any space for the existence of any other China.
It therefore goes without saying which China Ouyang Nana was referring to in her statement, or at least which China she would be taken to have meant.
China-friendly politicians are hiding their heads in the sand and dare not tell the truth. They disregard China’s malicious intent to annex Taiwan as they blindly chase after China’s non-existent goodwill. In so doing, they are pushing Taiwan toward unification.
China has laid its cards on the table, and it is obvious that the “1992 consensus” was made up to serve the “one country, two systems” policy. This is as clear as day, so Taiwan should stop mincing its words and reject China-friendly politicians who want to sell Taiwan down the river.
Chen Kuan-fu is a research student at National Taipei University’s law department.
Translated by Julian Clegg
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has upheld the core goals of “making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” fully implementing an “America first” policy. Countries have responded cautiously to the fresh style and rapid pace of the new Trump administration. The US has prioritized reindustrialization, building a stronger US role in the Indo-Pacific, and countering China’s malicious influence. This has created a high degree of alignment between the interests of Taiwan and the US in security, economics, technology and other spheres. Taiwan must properly understand the Trump administration’s intentions and coordinate, connect and correspond with US strategic goals.
RSS