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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS