It is certain that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) will run as the party’s presidential candidate next year and this has attracted overwhelming “well-intentioned” suggestions — as well as intimidation — from the pan-blue camp and media outlets. They demanded that to maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, Tsai must accept the so-called “1992 consensus” in general or offer an alternative such as “constitutional one China.”
The “1992 consensus” refers to a tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Beijing that both sides of the Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
In response to Tsai’s decision to run for president, Beijing also said that anti-Taiwanese independence and insistence on the “1992 consensus” are its bottom line — an ultimatum, it seems.
The question is: Is it true that without the “1992 consensus,” there will be no cross-strait relations or exchanges? Cross-strait exchanges began on Dec. 2, 1987, when the government allowed people to visit relatives in China. In October 1990, the government permitted indirect Taiwanese investment in China. In the 1990s, Taiwanese were visiting China and investments were growing even before the idea of a “1992 consensus” existed.
In 2000, the DPP became the ruling party, greatly loosening restrictions on Taiwanese investment in China and cross-strait travel. Still nobody talked about the “consensus.” Nor was it a requirement for implementing the “small three links” or weekend direct cross-strait flights. On the contrary, the over-liberalization of cross-strait relations abruptly killed off Taiwan’s economic momentum, resulting in the second transition of power.
In 2008, the KMT took office again. To please Beijing, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration appended the “1992 consensus” to what had been normal cross-strait relations. The only reason for the KMT’s move was to provide a mechanism for Taiwan to jump on the China bandwagon.
Had Ma’s policy been successful, he would not have started the political tussle in 2013 to oust Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), the Sunflower movement would not have taken place nor would there have been a pan-blue rout in last year’s nine-in-one elections. Cross-strait relations under the “1992 consensus” have proven to be a poor facilitator of mutual trust, because any imposed requirement implies inequality. That is the reason Taiwanese do not trust the Ma administration and are wary of cross-strait relations.
Beijing forcing the “1992 consensus” on the DPP is the same as asking Taiwanese to agree upon a treaty while thousands of Chinese missiles are pointed at the nation. There is no discussion, let alone mutual trust.
Economically speaking, cross-strait policy under the “1992 consensus” has been disastrous. Ma’s failure to deliver his “6-3-3” campaign pledge is an inevitable result because the “one China” policy means there is only one market: China. For the previous six years, Taiwan has been marginalized, resulting in a depressed economy that can only afford a minimum wage of NT$22,000 per worker and produce a mere 2.9 percent economic growth rate, making Ma the worst economic performer among all the nation’s presidents.
The “1992 consensus” is not the foundation on which to build cross-strait relations. On the contrary, it destroys the harmony of cross-strait ties. A cross-strait relationship without the “1992 consensus” is the right path, facilitating peace and mutual trust, and bringing prosperity back to Taiwan. The prospects of the younger generation depend on it.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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