Poor old President Chen Shui-bian (
After being roundly panned over the years as the troublemakers who refused to accept and recognize the "1992 consensus" by the US, China and opposition parties, a ray of light finally broke through the mist on Tuesday when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi (
Su said he coined the phrase in the hope that the cross-strait deadlock could be broken and that both sides of the Strait could retain a "basis for dialogue."
But who was Su to decide what was best for Taiwan? Granted, at that time he was the chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, but it did not give him the right to just make something up, let alone make a decision on such a politically sensitive issue while keeping his boss -- then-president Lee Teng-hui (
Just because Su personally believed that the term was good for the people of Taiwan did not mean it was necessarily so.
The transfer of power in 2000 could have been a great opportunity for Taiwan to step up the pace in its bid for nationhood. Yet, since then, the road has been extremely bumpy both domestically and internationally because of the shackles placed on the nation by Su and his fabricated "consensus."
During the 1992 meeting held in Hong Kong, China insisted on sticking to its "one China" principle while the representative of the KMT government stuck to "one China with each side having its own interpretation." No consensus was ever reached nor was any document signed under these premises.
When Koo Chen-fu (
Su insists today that although he made up the term, it worked out well as both the US and China accepted the phrase.
The question that needs asking now is: Why should the DPP government have to shoulder the responsibility for Su's lies?
Take the recent controversy over Taiwan's national title as an example, where the Republic of China (ROC) was crossed out in a program distributed at a concert where Chinese performers were present.
If a consensus on "one China with each side having its own interpretation" existed, then surely an event held in Taiwan would have every right to display the title, the ROC, without any objections.
Moreover, during former KMT chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) last May, Hu publicly stated that the meaning of "one China" in the "one China with each side having its own interpretation" was the People's Republic of China (PRC) -- with Lien standing dumbly beside him.
If the "1992 consensus" existed, why didn't Lien then stand up and rebuff Hu's comments?
If KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Instead, Ma today stood up and insisted there was a "1992 consensus." It seems that Ma's contempt for the public knows no bounds these days.
For the past six years or so, the pro-localization government in Taiwan has been struggling to walk freely because of these "1992 consensus" chains. Now that the truth is finally out, the DPP government should break free from these ideological shackles and get back to building Taiwan's national consciousness.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS