On Sept. 10, 1992, a meeting took place in Hong Kong between representatives of Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, which gave birth to the so-called “1992 consensus.”
To coincide with the 30th anniversary of the meeting this month, the official publication of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — the CPPCC Daily — ran an article titled “Root and branch reform: Distortion of the ‘1992 consensus’ cannot be tolerated.”
The article said that “the ‘1992 consensus’ means only ‘one China’ — there is no scope for a different interpretation [of what China means].”
Like a parent scolding a naughty child, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) mouthpiece went on to criticize the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for its “distortion” and “misrepresentation” of the “1992 consensus.”
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) responded: “If they state their position and we state our position, is that not each side providing its own interpretation [of what ‘China’ means]?”
The article shows that the CCP is using a key state-run publication to set the tone for the future of cross-strait policy.
The CPPCC is a “united front” organization and its chairman, Wang Yang (汪洋), is also a member of the CCP’s seven-strong Politburo Standing Committee. The CPPCC Daily is an intermediary used by the CCP to publicize the party’s “united front” stance and policies. The article is therefore by no means an off-the-cuff editorial piece: It should be taken as representing a shift in direction of the party’s stance toward the “1992 consensus.”
The article poses a significant crisis for the KMT, which has for decades tied its cross-strait policy to the “1992 consensus” and its appended formula: “‘One China,’ with each side having its own interpretation of what ‘China’ means.”
With Beijing using an official publication to unilaterally change the meaning of the “1992 consensus” — and publicly criticizing the KMT’s embellishment of the “consensus” as a “distortion” that “muddies the waters” — Chu’s response was impotent and ineffectual. If each side is saying its own thing, can there be any form of consensus between the CCP and the KMT?
The article also surreptitiously merges disparate strands of information to fabricate historical statements — a classic “united front” tactic.
The article references the UN Security Council’s 1971 Resolution 2758, which it said “resolved all of the problems, including Taiwan, relating to representative authority at the UN.”
The article also misrepresents the World Health Assembly’s 1972 Resolution 25.1, which it said “determined that Taiwan was a province of China and therefore did not have an independent status, and that Taiwanese officials did not enjoy any form of political status.”
Both of these statements are false. Neither resolution refers to “Taiwan” by name.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for China, Taiwan and Mongolia Rick Waters has previously criticized China for misusing Resolution 2758 in an attempt to manipulate public opinion and trick the international community into erroneously believing that China possesses sovereignty rights over Taiwan.
The article shows that the CCP intends to define the “1992 consensus” as nothing more than another version of its “one China” principle that provides no room for the coexistence of the Republic of China. Whether the KMT continues to doggedly cling to its “1992 consensus” remains to be seen.
Liou Je-wei is a graduate student of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Edward Jones
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