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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS