On March 18, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) made three appeals to the Chinese Communist Party and mentioned the notion of “constructive ambiguity.” In response, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office said that to develop peacefully, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should return to the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Coincidentally, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) also said that the “1992 consensus,” based on the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC), is a kind of constructive ambiguity that the KMT was practicing in the past.
Former legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) said that if both sides of the Strait put their minds to good use, it would produce a “faint beauty” that both sides should be able to accept.
The KMT has always interpreted the “1992 consensus with no consensus” as meaning “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
However, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in a 2019 speech interpreted the “consensus” as meaning “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to ‘one China’ and should work together to achieve national unification” and that the “one country, two systems” is the best way to achieve that goal. This shows how differently the two sides view the “1992 consensus.”
The KMT caucus in October proposed a motion on “resuming diplomatic relations between Taiwan and the US,” which was approved unanimously by ruling and opposition legislators.
Chiang said in an interview that “Taiwan and the US used to have diplomatic relations.”
However, with whom did the US break diplomatic relations on Jan. 1, 1979 — China or Taiwan?
Furthermore, whenever an election is approaching, KMT candidates at all levels energetically wave the national flag and loudly voice their support for the “Republic of China.”
However, when proposing a motion in the legislature to resume diplomatic relations between Taiwan and the US, they no longer insist on calling the nation “China.” It makes one wonder how clear the KMT really is about its own national orientation and identity.
During the last legislative session, a group of lawmakers headed by Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃) proposed a constitutional amendment that would change the opening words of the Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution from “to meet the requisites of national unification” to “to meet the requisites of national development,” and also change the wording of Article 4 of the Constitution from “the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries” to “the extent of the territory of the Republic of China is the area within which the Constitution has effect.”
Opinion polls show that about 70 percent of people in Taiwan identify as Taiwanese and not Chinese, while 80 percent think the Constitution should be amended to define the nation’s territory as “Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.”
The objective of constitutional amendments should be to guide the nation toward normalization, so that it is no longer vaguely defined, and Taiwanese can resist anti-democratic external forces.
Constitutional amendments should also provide more written safeguards for new-generation human rights and make government institutions more complete.
Hopefully, the Legislative Yuan’s Constitutional Amendment Committee can go beyond a focus on citizenship rights for 18-year-olds and hold more comprehensive discussions about a blueprint for a new Constitution for Taiwan.
Lin Jun-jie is a student in Chung Yuan Christian University’s Department of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS