On Tuesday, newly elected Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) suggested that Taiwan ditch the so-called “1992 consensus” — referring to a tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese government, in which both acknowledge that there is “one China,” but each side has its own interpretation of what that means — and move toward a new “2015 consensus,” developing a new approach toward cross-strait exchanges based on the “four mutuals” — mutual knowledge, mutual understanding, mutual respect and mutual cooperation.
As became quite apparent during his unconventional election campaign, Ko is an out-of-the-box thinker who eschews traditions and tries to find new approaches and new ways to resolve old problems. His approach was apparently liked by many Taipei residents, as he was elected by a landslide majority, winning 57.2 percent of the vote against 40.8 percent for KMT scion and Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文).
Now, there are few issues that are as deeply entrenched in traditional thinking as the issue of cross-strait relations. For decades, the terms were dictated by the dichotomy between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China: On one hand a repressive regime in Beijing that wanted to “reunify China” by annexing Taiwan. On the other hand an authoritarian KMT regime that wanted to “recover the mainland.”
This changed in the early 1990s, when under then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) there were cautious feelers put out in the direction of some sort of rapprochement. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) attempted to continue the rapprochement, but at the same time asserted Taiwan’s identity and separateness. This did not sit well with Beijing, leading to the downturn in relations.
The election of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) brought another twist: He accepted the “1992 consensus” and went into full-fledged rapprochement with China, at the expense of freedom and democracy in Taiwan. His push for further economic integration with China led to a pushback by Taiwanese who feared economic overdependence would lead to unwanted political integration.
So where do we stand now? The “1992 consensus” is a fiction: Even Lee — who was president in 1992 — said there was never a consensus in 1992. The question then becomes: Is it a useful fiction?
The Ma administration obviously believes it is essential to cross-strait relations: Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) immediately lambasted Ko, saying that the “1992 consensus” is the basis for the “progress” made since Ma came to power in 2008.
However, one has to ask: What “progress” has been made? Yes, there has been an absence of direct hostilities, and Ma has pushed for close economic (and political?) integration with China.
However, in the meantime China has built up its military power with the obvious purpose of forcing Taiwan into its fold. Taiwan has hardly been able to gain more international space: The “achievements” of gaining observer status in the WHO and “guest” at the International Civil Aviation Organization convention were more form than substance. So, the fiction is not very useful, and we need to find alternative approaches.
Real progress can only be made if Taiwan, with the help of the international community, can move toward a new consensus in which China has a better understanding of what Taiwanese want, and if it respects the wishes of Taiwanese for a free, democratic and sovereign state. That is precisely the essence of Ko’s “2015 consensus.”
Mei-chin Chen is a political commentator based in Washington.
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