“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
That saying from a notorious propaganda chief seems to be what President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is aiming for with its so-called “1992 consensus” — which has become a ubiquitous term among Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese officials alike.
Never mind the fact that former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 openly admitted fabricating the term in 2000 before the KMT handed power over to the Democratic Progressive Party, nor the fact that China has made it clear that the “1992 consensus” is just another way of describing its “one country, two systems” policy — which does not at all recognize that each side of the Taiwan Strait has its own interpretation of what “one China” means. The Ma administration has nonetheless stuck to this lie, as it continues to deceive the Taiwanese public and toe Beijing’s line.
Following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) warning earlier last month that there would be “earthshaking” consequences to cross-strait relations if the political basis of the “1992 consensus” is challenged, Ma yesterday reiterated the importance of the so-called consensus as a “foundation for peaceful cross-strait development” by further threatening his own people that cross-strait relations would descend into “chaos” if people go against it.
It is one thing for China to sell its interpretation of the “1992 consensus” to members of the international community, as it has made no secret of its ambition to annex Taiwan. However, it is another thing when a head of state like Ma, who was elected by his own people, resorts to such tactics and allows Beijing to take advantage of the people with nary a protest.
“I deeply believe that peace and prosperity are the future of the two sides [of the Taiwan Strait] ... and what most Taiwanese expect,” Ma said in a speech during a visit to the Mainland Affairs Council, which council officials said was timed to commemorate the first high-level cross-strait meeting 22 years ago in Singapore.
Indeed, no one objects to having peaceful cross-strait relations, but peace must not be built on Taiwan’s voluntary denigration of its own status and forsaking its dignity as a sovereign state.
If Ma genuinely cares for peaceful cross-strait development, the dignity of the Republic of China which he represents, as well as the well-being of Taiwanese, rather than hanging on to the spurious “1992 consensus” and pushing the nation toward Beijing’s “one China” framework, he should speak out against China’s “Anti-Secession Law” and urge Beijing to revoke it.
While the law, enacted in 2005, claims to promote peaceful unification, it provides a legal basis, from the Chinese perspective, to rein in Taiwanese independence and facilitate the nation’s annexation through the use of military force. It clearly stipulates that Beijing — in the event that “Taiwanese independence” forces act under any name or by any means to cause Taiwan’s secession from China — shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures “to protect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
The motive and content of the law show nothing but malice and threats to peace on Beijing’s part.
It is downright pathetic that the Ma government believes in a consensus that does not really exist, all the while lacking the guts to stand up to Chinese aggression and bullying.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS