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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS