American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt was honest when he said recently that the term “1992 consensus” was not coined until 2000 — and that he has never heard former Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits chairman Wang Daohan (汪道涵) or former Straits Exchange Foundation chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) use the term. Burghardt’s remarks were directed at Chinese, who have limited access to information regarding cross-strait issues, and were made at a crucial moment and to a carefully chosen media outlet.
In a public manner, Burghardt’s remarks exposed the lies of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and embarrassed advocates of the fictitious “1992 consensus” by revealing how completely untrustworthy they are.
Of anyone, Burghardt is the most qualified person to debunk the so-called “1992 consensus,” because he knows that Wang and Koo — two people directly involved in cross-strait negotiations during the 1990s — never used the term, and because he himself has heard Ma reveal details about the fabrication of the term.
On Nov. 30, 2007, Ma told Burghardt that, as the “one China” principle — the idea that both sides of the Taiwan Strait accept that there is only one China, with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means — is similar to Beijing’s “1992 consensus,” the latter can be used as a foundation for negotiating cross-strait issues. This conversation suggests that Ma was aware that he was lying to Taiwanese about the “consensus.”
As China mounts pressure on President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to accept the non-existent consensus, Burghardt, in an interview with Voice of America in Washington, drew attention to the close relationship between former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Wang, saying that “everyone in China knows the term ‘1992 consensus’ was not used by anyone until 2000.”
Burghardt’s timely remarks, published by a news outlet widely trusted by Chinese readers, was a shrewd move.
He reiterated the US’ promise not to intervene in any cross-strait negotiations and that it would not exert pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with China. While many people might have found it surprising that Burghardt did not speak about the US Congress’ recent resolution in support of the “six assurances” during his interview, he did take the opportunity to reaffirm the US’ promises to Taiwan when discussing possible ways to resolve cross-strait issues. Although his clarification of the “1992 consensus” is important, it would not have been as powerful and significant had he not also reaffirmed the US’ promises.
China has made the “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle the prerequisites for allowing Taiwan to participate in international events and used this as a means to put pressure on the Tsai administration. The manner in which Beijing has threatened the government is in conflict with the Taiwan Relations Act, and it is likely to be deemed unacceptable by the US government.
Although Burghardt said that the US would not comment on the “1992 consensus” or a “1992 understanding,” as they are not related to the US, he exposed the nonexistence of the “1992 consensus.” In addition, he reassured Taiwan that the US would not pressure it to negotiate with China. In so doing, Burghardt was clearly sending out an important message to China and Chinese. For that reason, Taiwanese owe him a big thank you.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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