|
KMT now supports an emasculated
‘consensus’
By Lin Cho-shui 林濁水
Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won three of the five special
municipality mayoral seats, it actually lost in terms of the popular vote, an
indicator more relevant to the presidential election in 2012. As a result,
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who doubles as KMT chairman, has resorted to
criticizing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文)
over Taiwan’s national status. He claims that the Chinese Communist Party has
already recognized the KMT’s so-called “1992 consensus,” citing a telephone
conversation between Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and former US president
George W. Bush and a statement made by China’s Association for Relations Across
the Taiwan Strait Vice Chairman Li Yafei (李亞飛) during a visit to Taiwan in
August. Ma has questioned how the DPP can rule the nation if it refuses to
recognize this consensus, since it is now the foundation for cross-strait peace.
Beijing has, indeed, accepted the so-called “1992 consensus,” but things are not
that simple. The KMT invented the term in 2002, hoping both Taipei and Beijing
would recognize the idea of “one China, with each side having its own
interpretation” (一中各表). The term means that both the Republic of China (ROC) and
People’s Republic of China (PRC) have equal space in the interpretation of “one
China” — which Beijing has rejected.
Although the term “1992 consensus” did appear in the Chinese version of a press
release by Xinhua following the Hu-Bush meeting, around the time of the 2008
presidential campaign in Taiwan, the English version had it as “the 1992
consensus, which sees both sides recognize that there is only one China, but
agree to differ on its definition.”
At the time, Ma thought that Beijing had finally changed its stance by accepting
“one China, with each side having its own interpretation” under the so-called
“1992 consensus.” He got it wrong. Beijing has long acknowledged that both
Taiwan and China accept “one China” with different views, since 1992 in fact,
but it has never agreed that Taiwan can make its own interpretation, nor
accepted the formula Ma was hoping for. In response, Hu completely rejected the
possibility of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” in his
“six-point statement” released in 2008. This depressed Ma for a long time.
As for Li’s August statement, he merely said that the so-called “1992 consensus”
is a consensus in which the two verbally interpret their insistence on “one
China.” Again, his statement did not recognize Taiwan’s right to interpret the
definition.
From this, Ma has finally realized that Beijing’s view of the so-called “1992
consensus” does not involve respective interpretations. Because of this, he
dared not add “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” when he
referred to the Hu-Bush meeting and Li’s remarks.
The problem is that since the KMT does not accept Taiwanese independence, the
idea of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” was the
party’s very last line of defense in its attempts to hold on to power. It was
always the principle the KMT would attach to any mention of the so-called “1992
consensus.” However, whenever Ma mentions the consensus now, he simply quotes Hu
and Li and leaves out any mention of respective interpretations within the
consensus, avoiding the ROC’s interpretation of “one China.” Such a consensus is
10,000 times worse than no consensus at all.
Incredibly, Ma is still taking Tsai to task over this emasculated “1992
consensus” and is hoping to ride it to re-election in 2012. People in Taiwan are
now much more aware of the issue of sovereignty. It has become a mainstream
issue. What on earth could Ma be thinking?
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party
legislator.
|
