On Nov. 25, just days before the nine-in-one elections, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍), expressed his expectation that independent Taipei mayoral candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) would recognize the so-called “1992 consensus” if he should win. Ko responded with a question long evaded by governments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait: “What are the details of the consensus?”
He went on to explain that he had paid frequent visits to China and knew China and Chinese people well.
“Taiwan has to engage with China whether we like it or not,” he said. “But the point is Taiwan has to preserve her self-determination.”
Ko then proposed his “four mutuals:” mutual awareness, mutual understanding, mutual respect and mutual cooperation.
“At least for the moment, the Republic of China is my bottom line,” he said.
When the same critical question was raised by a Reuters journalist at the post-election press conference, it was confirmed that the mayoral election was not a purely local event. Ko has in effect emerged as a new leader who could potentially make a difference in the diplomatic realm.
On May 7, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) met People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) in Beijing. Xi read his note word by word to reiterate China’s policy toward Taiwan, which is known as the “four noes” principle: China will not alter its pursuit of peace in cross-strait relations; it will not give up its pragmatic approach to seeking mutual benefit; nothing will shake its passion to push for the unity of the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait; it will never waver in its determination to prevent Taiwan’s independence.
Soong responded with his “four understandings:” Understanding Taiwan’s consciousness, which is not equivalent to Taiwan independence; understanding Taiwan’s civic autonomy with the fundamental differences in political and social systems between Taiwan and China; understanding Taiwan’s pluralistic society in a democracy; understanding Taiwan’s independent and pluralistic economy — consisting of many small and medium enterprises.
Xi and Soong seemed to be striving to deal with the so-called “one China” policy without referring to conflicting underlying concepts.
On the contrary, former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起), the man who contrived the “1992 consensus,” seems to deconstruct the consensus in his new book 20 years of Vacillations in Cross-Strait Relations (兩岸波濤二 十年紀實), published less than one month before the vote.
Su mentions in the first chapter that there is no single signed document called the “1992 consensus,” yet the numerous exchange of notes and mail discussing the so-called “one China” principle are enough to validate the term “consensus.” Here, Su interprets the consensus as a legal item.
Nevertheless, Su revealed in the fourth chapter that his purpose when creating the consensus was to mediate Beijing’s attitude of “Yes” and the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) “No” with the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) “Yes, but.” Su admitted that the consensus, in this context, is nothing more than political wrapping paper trying to cover a dispute.
In fact, it could be deemed a scaffold that should be disassembled when construction is completed.
Now Ko, as the mayor-elect of Taipei, has become the second political figure to the president in Taiwan. His “four mutuals” will weigh heavily on cross-strait policy, countering Xi’s “four noes” and Soong’s “four understandings.”
Indeed, it is about time to review and retire the 15-year-old “1992 consensus,” which was created out of thin air.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS