‘1992 consensus’ irrelevant
There is much debate about the so-called “1992 consensus.” This “consensus” has nothing to do with Taiwan. It is only relevant to China and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) quest to unite with China.
The fictional “1992 consensus” concerns the existence of “one China” and the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may or may not have come to some understanding, each without respect or reference to the people either of Taiwan or China, but this “understanding” does not bind anyone except the two political parties.
Whether or not these two entities believe there is “one China” does not require the 23 million Taiwanese to agree that Taiwan is somehow China. Even the KMT has repeated over and over (whether its leadership believes it or not) that the future of Taiwan will be left to its people, not the KMT or China, to decide.
Nor does the so-called “1992 consensus” involve the issue of whether Taiwan is part of China. The reason for this is the KMT’s convenient usage of the term Republic of China (ROC). That term has nothing to do with Taiwan’s sovereignty. It was coined long before the KMT came to Taiwan, when the latter was still a colony of Japan.
The KMT’s obsession with the consensus is proof that it does not consider Taiwan’s interests as important compared with China’s. The consensus does not involve Taiwan’s sovereignty at all and the two interpretations mentioned in the consensus only concern who rules China. The fact that it is ignored by the CCP and the KMT is because there exists an obvious and very real third “interpretation”: that Taiwan belongs to Taiwan.
It is not surprising that the KMT and the CCP ignore this, because to confront it would reveal an inconvenient truth — that both the KMT and CCP lay claim to the same land, which is now the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Taiwan’s sovereignty issue is merely a tool the two sides use to distract everyone in China and Taiwan while they talk about how to divvy up the spoils.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) considers himself the president of China, with Taiwan being a tiny part of what he considers his domain. He may play here and there in Taiwan, but he does not consider himself the president of the Taiwanese people. He is just temporarily in Taiwan until his party can make arrangements for its triumphant return to the “Mainland.”
And what happens to Taiwan then? Casinos, betel nut beauties, red-light districts, tourism and not much else. It will be a new Macau.
The “1992 consensus” cannot involve the sovereignty of Taiwan, because it does not allow for the possibility that Taiwan is independent, admittedly an issue yet to be resolved. Therefore, for the “1992 consensus” to govern relations across the Taiwan Strait necessarily involves the surrender by the KMT of Taiwan’s sovereignty (never mind the ROC, which does not exist except in the minds of the KMT) because under either interpretation, Taiwan cannot be sovereign.
For the KMT to argue that this so-called consensus is therefore somehow the only possible result is disingenuous because it contradicts the KMT’s own proclamation that the people of Taiwan must be allowed to determine their own future and because it means the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese cannot achieve what poll after poll shows they believe — that is that they are citizens of an already free and independent Taiwan.
The KMT is playing fast and loose with the people of Taiwan and Ma needs to come clean about this. There is no Taiwanese sovereignty in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), none in the 15 agreements signed between the KMT and the CCP, none in the “1992 consensus” and none in the KMT’s future.
The KMT cannot give up Taiwan’s sovereignty issue now, because then the KMT will have nowhere to go. That is why the KMT clings to Taiwan and will cling to it until it can negotiate its way back onto the “Mainland.”
The people of Taiwan need to remember that fact when they vote in 2012.
LEE LONG-HWA
New York
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS