During his trip to the US at the beginning of the month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was asked about his position on the so-called “1992 consensus.” Chu said that the cross-Taiwan Strait political formula is a “no-consensus consensus” and a form of “created ambiguity” between the two sides.
He was immediately rebuffed by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, which said in a statement that “the 1992 consensus is not permitted to be arbitrarily distorted, [Chu] must maintain a clear head and keep to the correct direction.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) set the tone in 2019 when he said that “the 1992 consensus means ‘one country, two systems,’” leaving absolutely no ambiguity or room for consensus.
How is Chu’s “created ambiguity” somehow further distorting or fabricating anything?
A think tank affiliated with the KMT recently conducted an opinion poll on the cross-strait relationship, as well as Taiwan’s relations with the US and Japan.
In response to the question: “Should Taiwan enter into a dialogue with China based upon the 1992 consensus?” 26 percent of respondents answered “yes” and 37 percent said “no.”
KMT Legislator Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), who has been touted as a potential candidate for Taipei mayor, on Saturday said that communication between the two sides is more important than adhering to the “consensus.”
With the nine-in-one elections set for November, the results of the KMT’s own opinion polling and Chang’s statement indicate the party is now fully aware that it can no longer continue to blindly endorse the “consensus.” It knows it is time to drop the charade.
However, it is unclear how former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will respond.
The idea of the “1992 consensus” originated at Hong Kong talks in 1992 between China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF), mainly to discuss practical issues such as cross-strait document notarization and registered letters.
On Oct. 28, 1992, the opening day of the talks, ARATS representative Zhou Ning (周寧) asked then-SEF legal bureau head Shi Hwei-yow (許惠祐), who represented the Taiwanese side, to discuss how the concept of “one China” was to be expressed.
Shi said that he was willing to go along with Zhou’s request, but also cited reservations about the political implications of the phrase. Zhou proposed five ways to express “one China,” but two days later, Shi said that the formulations were unacceptable.
The two sides failed to reach a consensus and Zhou departed Hong Kong on Nov. 1, 1992, unwilling to proceed with the talks.
Ma is the person responsible for the “big lie” of the “1992 consensus,” a fabrication that has caused trouble for Taiwan for decades.
In the years after the 1992 talks ended in failure, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the KMT continued to muddy the waters and fabricate falsehoods, “confirming” that there was an informal consensus between the two sides.
On April 28, 2000, weeks after the presidential election and just before the transition of power to the KMT’s political rivals, then-Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) invented the concept of the “1992 consensus,” saying that there had been an agreement to express the concept of “one China” as “one China, with each side having different interpretations.”
The fabrication was included in the KMT’s platform and has since become Ma’s talisman to change Taiwanese independence to eventual unification. He sought to turn a fabrication into a “fact.”
However, in his speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of the “Message to Taiwan Compatriots in Taiwan” in 2019, Xi said that the “1992 consensus” based on the “one China” principle was that “the two sides of the Strait belong to one China and will work together to seek national unification.”
He also clearly defined the “1992 consensus” as being an agreement on “one China,” and “one country, two systems.”
Who exactly is guilty of “creative ambiguity”?
With China’s People’s Liberation Army fighters and warships threatening and intimidating Taiwan with increased regularity, the faltering KMT is hoping to “put conflict aside.” Chu believes that “in the absence of a better formulation,” Taiwan should continue to communicate with the CCP in the same way that it has until now, that is, based on the “consensus.”
The KMT has not seen the light and has not mended its ways. It knows there is an election on the way and that it cannot continue to try to hoodwink the electorate with lies about the “1992 consensus.”
If it does, its days are numbered.
Chen Ching-kuen is an assistant professor.
Translated by Edward Jones and Paul Cooper
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
A recent report concerning a student who is suing his teacher posed the question in its headline: Does failing a student in two subjects constitute bullying? The college student in Chiayi County apparently sought NT$2 million (US$63,603) in state compensation, but a court dismissed the case. The first reaction of many might have been to ask: What has happened to students nowadays? Some say that teachers have lost their authority, while others say students are overindulged. Some even start reminiscing over the days when “whatever the teacher says goes.” However, the real issue might be overlooked if emotional reactions like that are the
RSS