“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
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