No.24, January 22, 2020

Former President Ma Ying-jeou said that the "1992 Consensus" must still be the consensus between Taiwan and the Chinese mainland.
(Photo from: The Storm Media)

● Featured News: Ma: Revised 1992 Consensus Must Still Be a Cross-Strait Consensus

● Featured Editorial: Commentary: KMT Only to Lose by Emulating DPP
● Featured Opinion: KMT Should Propose Cross-Strait Policy Based on R.O.C.
● This Week in Taiwan: Other Important Events This Week

Ma: Revised 1992 Consensus Must Still Be a Cross-Strait Consensus

United Daily News, January 18, 2020

Former President Ma Ying-jeou recently proposed four prerequisites to give new meanings to the “1992 Consensus”. One of the prerequisites that the consensus should be acceptable to Beijing evokes debates. Ma said yesterday that the “1992 Consensus” must be a consensus between Taiwan and mainland China, and if Beijing does not agree to it, then with whom can a consensus be reached?

 

Taipei City Councilmen Chang Sze-kang and others recently met with Ma Ying-jeou and they restated Ma’s ideas. Ma thinks that there are four prerequisites to give new meanings to the “1992 Consensus”: consistency with the Republic of China (R.O.C.) Constitution, support by public opinion, and acceptance by Beijing as a foundation for cross-strait interactions, and understanding by the international community.

 

Ma said yesterday that to be effective, the “1992 Consensus” must be a Taiwan consensus as well as a cross-strait consensus. As to whether there is a consensus at the present time, Ma said a way must be found to restore the consensus. He said that “One China, Respective Interpretations” is actually beneficial to Taiwan, for it is flexible, conforms to the principle of “One China” under the Constitution, and can facilitate cross-strait interaction.

 

As to whether there is a gap in mutual understanding, Ma said that mainland China should be held responsible for interpreting the 1992 Consensus as “One China” and forgetting about “respective interpretations.” Ma added that if the situation does not change, then difficulties in cross-strait relations will only increase.

 

Ma said whether the Kuomintang (KMT) should revise its cross-strait policy can be discussed. Maintaining the relationship with mainland China is the important issue. Ma said that whether we should continue confrontation to the end or adopt peaceful means to resolve controversies is key.

 

There are debates within the KMT about the cross-strait policy. Director Hsiao Ching-yen of the KMT’s Youth Department told reporters that the people of Taiwan voted to reject the “1992 Consensus” discourse of “One China with respective interpretations,” so a new policy line that opposes unification has to be found.

 

Former Director Chang Ya-ping of the KMT’s Organization Development Committee posted a statement on his Facebook to rebut the statement by Hsiao. Chang said that the KMT is the defender of the Republic of China and the R.O.C. Constitution. Chang added that anyone who is unwilling to protect the Constitution can leave the KMT.

 

However, Hsiao explained on his Facebook last night that the “1992 Consensus” is no longer the consensus of the majority of Taiwanese people. The people of Taiwan, especially the young generation have equated the “1992 Consensus” with “One Country, Two Systems” formula for unification. The KMT should face this problem honestly and resolve it. Since it was China which broke the cross-strait consensus first, the KMT, the ruling party under which the consensus was reached, should respond.

 

Chang was a campaign aide when Ma ran for Taipei mayor and president. Chang was also the KMT’s deputy secretary-general and concurrently director of Organization Development Committee when Hong Hsiu-chu served as the KMT’s chairwoman. Chang said yesterday that some young KMT members acted with Hsiao and certain of them even advocated that the KMT should change its name from “Chinese” to “Taiwan” Nationalist Party. Chang said that the KMT’s reform cannot depart from the party’s basic ideas and core values.

 

From: https://udn.com/news/story/11311/4296217

Having suffered defeat in the 2020 presidential election, Kuomintang (KMT) Chairman Wu Den-yih resigned, and many within the party have proposed reviewing and revising the "1992 Consensus" policy in conducting cross-strait relations.
(Photo from: China Times)

Commentary: KMT Only to Lose by Emulating DPP

United Daily News, January 18, 2020

 

After losing the presidential election, there has been a heated debate within the Kuomintang (KMT) concerning its cross-strait policy. Some young party members of the KMT have advocated abandoning the 1992 Consensus in order to regain popular support. But they have no idea that by doing so will in fact destroy the KMT’s core values and violate the Constitution. Speculative emulation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is counter-productive and will fail to gain public support.

 

The future of Taiwan is closely tied to cross-strait relations. The dark cloud over the Taiwan Strait will not disperse if there is no political foundation between the two sides. After President Tsai Ing-wen won re-election on January 11, most domestic and international scholars assess that Beijing will continue to pressure Taiwan diplomatically and by military exercises. In the next four years, Taiwan will face an even more severe diplomatic “blockade.”

 

When both sides of the Taiwan Strait reached the understanding in 1992, it was done with a view to maintain cross-strait peace and stability and promote mutually beneficial exchanges. The essence of the “1992 Consensus” is that both sides accept the “one-China” principle but differ in its meaning (namely, “one China, with respective interpretations”). On this basis, both sides could hold functional negotiations without touching on the thorny issue of sovereignty. The enormous exchanges between the two sides from 2008 to 2016 under President Ma Ying-jeou is a cogent testimony to the effectiveness of the 1992 Consensus.

 

But after President Tsai won re-election by some 8 million votes by playing the anti-China card and equating the 1992 Consensus with “One Country, Two Systems,” some young KMT members instinctively thought that the party should abandon the 1992 Consensus to cater to the new public opinion. However, this will result in destroying the consensus and mutual confidence reached after the summit meeting between KMT Chairman Lien Chan and Chinese leader Hu Jintao in 2005.

 

In the first press conference held after Taiwan’s presidential election, Spokesman Ma Xiaoguang of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, State Council, reiterated that the 1992 Consensus is the basis for peaceful development of cross-strait relations. Any party that supports peaceful development between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should doubly cherish it. Ma emphasized the point with the KMT and pan-blue supporters in mind.

 

That said, Beijing should also ask itself why it is becoming more difficult for the 1992 Consensus to be accepted in Taiwan? The reason is that Beijing has failed to recognize the existence of the Republic of China on Taiwan and continues to oppress Taiwan’s participation in the international community, squeezing the leg of “respective interpretation” in the 1992 Consensus. Beijing’s failure to acknowledge “One China, with respective interpretations” is tantamount to allying with DPP to destroy the KMT. After the KMT’s defeat, the view to emulate the DPP’s China policy by abandoning the 1992 Consensus only shows to the people the lackluster faith to reform by the KMT. What then is the difference between the KMT and the DPP? Why will people opt for a replica over an original?

 

Former President Ma correctly opined that the 1992 Consensus could be adjusted and new cross-strait policy formulated in the KMT as long as it conforms to the Constitution and is supported by the people. If KMT just tries to emulate the DPP and does not reform itself and revamp its core values, it will not gain new support. What is worse, the KMT will lose its own support base and negatively affect confidence across the strait.

 

From: https://udn.com/news/story/11311/4296214

KMT Should Propose Cross-Strait Policy Based on R.O.C.

By Shih Wei-chuan
The Storm Media, January 17, 2020

 

Whether the “1992 Consensus” exists is under dispute in Taiwan. The 1992 Consensus was understood to mean acknowledgement of "one China," but with each side of the Taiwan Strait free to interpret what "China" means. Under such interpretation, Beijing could see it as the People's Republic of China while Taipei could see it as the Republic of China. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has denied the 1992 Consensus and equated it to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s so-called “One Country, Two Systems” formula for Taiwan.

 

The 1992 Consensus and “One Country, Two Systems” are essentially two different things. There is no market for “One Country, Two Systems” in Taiwan. Xi publicly stated that the future of cross-strait relations depends on the degree of economic development on the mainland China. He also referred to " integrated development" that emphasized "spiritual harmony" across the Taiwan Strait. The DPP ’s interpretation of Xi ’s speech was just election rhetoric, which distorted Xi’s speech. But why did the Taiwanese people trust the DPP? First, for Taiwanese people, China has no credibility at all. Second, issues in cross-strait relations is not a matter of rational choice but rather that of emotional identification. Unfortunately, these two reasons were tangled together. No matter how good a pragmatic plan of actions proposed by the Communist Party, it will not win the hearts and minds of the people of Taiwan.

 

How did the defeated Kuomintang (KMT) in the presidential election perceive the tainted 1992 consensus? During the Ma Administration, the 1992 consensus did work well, and the two sides of the Taiwan Strait were able to shelve disputes and practically negotiate economic issues, rather than political issues. At that time, Beijing also talked less about “One Country, Two Systems.” Now, as a KMT Legislator said, the ambiguous framework originally shaped by the 1992 Consensus has been compressed, distorted and stigmatized by the ruling parties on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, because the 1992 consensus was quite vague, all parties were able to agree to disagree. The CCP would include its anti-Taiwan independence stance in its defined 1992 Consensus. In the past, the DPP denied the existence of the 1992 Consensus, but now the 1992 Consensus is being coined by the DPP as “One Country, Two System,” which the majority of Taiwanese people do not favor. This was one of the major reasons why the KMT lost the presidential election. If the KMT desires to continue its articulation of the 1992 Consensus, it must do so while presenting the Republic of China as a sovereign and independent state.

 

It is not the most important thing for the KMT to defend its version of the 1992 Consensus. The key to development of cross-strait relations lies in how the Communist Party responds to Taiwanese perception of the mainland. Beijing must resolutely say that integrated development, together with spiritual harmony, will not pull down the R.O.C.; no matter how creative the Taiwan initiative of “One Country, Two Systems,” the R.O.C. will not phase out. Without it, cross-strait relations could not be strengthened and deepened. Even though the existence of the R.O.C. encounters many difficulties diplomatically, It is the fact that the Republic of China on Taiwan has continually exercised its sovereignty, which is also the overwhelming consensus of the Taiwanese society. The Communist Party should not deny it. Mainland China should properly deal with the existence of the R.O.C. It is a prerequisite for developing cross-strait relations, otherwise even if the mainland is not in a hurry to step into the deep water of political negotiations across the strait, the people of Taiwan will initially fathom the unpredictable water depths. Although Beijing has rolled out so many benefits schemes in favor of Taiwanese people, they would not pay off.

 

Mainland China must practically respond to the identity of the R.O.C., especially its participation in international activities. If Beijing forces the young Taiwanese not to display the R.O.C. flag in international sports competitions, it would drive the young people to embrace the cause for Taiwan independence. The People’s Republic of China has dictated the definition of “China”, not allowing the R.O.C. to stand on the international stage. How can we blame the young people in Taiwan who do not consider themselves as Chinese? Indeed, they are not citizens of the P.R.C.

 

The KMT should further propose a cross-strait dialogue based on the Republic of China. If the 1992 Conesus is referred to, then the R.O.C. must be clearly stated. In addition, if a peace treaty is initiated, it must be made clear that the R.O.C. still exists and that the said treaty is to gain approval across Taiwanese society. They are the prerequisites for starting negotiation. The cross-strait political agreements and the status of Taiwan must not derive from the academic's brilliant ideas, they must go through a bottom-up processing. If the new KMT leadership dares not to refer to the R.O.C. while meeting with its mainland counterparts, it would run counter to Taiwan’s greatest common factor and deviate from Taiwan’s self-identity, letting cross-strait relations regress as a result. The DPP, which has principles but remains disabled in face of deteriorating cross-strait relations, can only struggle to survive between the rigidity of the Communist Party and the weakness of the KMT.

 

From: https://www.storm.mg/article/2189786

January 13: After the re-election of President Tsai Ing-wen, Premier Su Tseng-chang, by tradition, tendered his resignation. President Tsai met and asked Premier Su to remain in office. Adjustment of cabinet officials is expected after the presidential inauguration on May 20.

January 15: After defeat in the election, Kuomintang (KMT) Chairman Wu Den-yih, along with appointed party officials, tendered resignation. Lin Jung-te, a member of the KMT’s Central Standing Committee, will serve as acting chairman, and Legislator Tseng Ming-chung will act as secretary-general. The chairman by-election is expected to be held on March 7.

January 15: President Tsai Ing-wen announced that she had signed anti-infiltration bill into law and reiterated that the law does not aim to impede cross-strait relations. President Tsai instructed her administration to strengthen its explanation to the public, create a special committee, and set up an advisory service within the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) to resolve public concerns.

January 15: In an exclusive interview with BBC, President Tsai Ing-wen emphasized that Taiwan is already a sovereign and independent country, and there is no need to declare independence again. She said: “We call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan).” If China were to invade Taiwan, it would pay a great price.

January 16: In Taiwan, the first-phase auction securing 5G spectrum closed. The hottest spectrum was 3.5GHz band, which successfully bid for NT$5 billion (about US$167 million) per block, a world record. The five major mobile operators in Taiwan achieved significant gains. Market leader Chunghwa Telecom acquired 90MHz but also paid the highest cost, with overall expenditures of NT$46.2 billion (about US$1.5 billion).

January 17: Control Yuan member Chen Shih-meng was boycotted by a petition signed by some 80 percent of judges upset with his attempt to interrogate a judge who acquitted former President Ma Ying-jeou in a leaks case. The Office of the President confirmed that Chen tendered his resignation, but President Tsai Ing-wen’s attempt to keep Chen was criticized. Chen is expected to step down from his position on January 31.

Taiwan Weekly is a newsletter released every week by Fair Winds Foundation, Taipei Forum, and Association of Foreign Relations that provides coverage and perspectives into the latest developments in Taiwan.

The conclusions and recommendations of any Taiwan Weekly article are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the institutions that publish the newsletter.

If you like the content of Taiwan Weekly, Subscribe here.