|
EDITORIAL: No such
thing as a consensus
The recent volley of criticism launched by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his
re-election campaign manager King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) against Democratic Progressive
Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) proposed “Taiwan consensus”
ironically illustrated the absurdity of Ma and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT)
insistence that the so-called “1992 consensus” exists.
During a gathering with his Facebook friends in Kaohsiung on Saturday, Ma
criticized the DPP presidential candidate’s proposal to form a “Taiwan
consensus” to replace the “1992 consensus” as the basis for cross-strait
negotiation, saying that “maintaining cross-strait security is an important
matter that pertains to both sides, and as such, both sides need to form a
consensus, which can’t be achieved just because Taiwan [unilaterally] says so.”
Meanwhile, during his visit to the US to solicit support for Ma’s re-election
bid, King ridiculed Tsai’s “Taiwan consensus,” describing it as “unilateralism
that’s overblown.”
If only Ma and King could see how easily their criticism of Tsai’s idea can be
applied to their “1992 consensus.”
While Ma and King say that a cross-strait consensus cannot reflect what Taiwan
wants, have they not noticed that only their insistence on the “1992 consensus”
is simply a manifestation of what they want?
While Ma and the KMT insist that the “1992 consensus” was an understanding
reached during a meeting in Hong Kong in 1992 in which both sides acknowledged
there was “one China” with each side having its own interpretation of what “one
China” means, statements by Beijing officials, including those of Taiwan Affairs
Office Chairman Wang Yi (王毅), have clearly debunked the idea of a “1992
consensus” with any alternate interpretations other than there just being “one
China.”
Given the blatant differences in their respective understandings of what the
“1992 consensus” actually involves, it is nothing but the overblown
unilateralism that they have accused Tsai’s “Taiwan consensus” of being.
In his attack on Tsai’s idea of legalizing a “Taiwan consensus,” King said that
Tsai has previously referred to the Republic of China (ROC) as a
-“government-in-exile.” King challenged Tsai to explain how she would form a
consensus and turn it into law if she does not recognize the ROC or respect its
Constitution.
Interestingly, the Beijing-based Chinese Academy of Social Sciences earlier this
month completed a 36-volume work on the history of the ROC. In line with China’s
long-standing position that the ROC ceased to exist in 1949, none of the volumes
mention the development of the ROC in Taiwan after 1949.
Should King’s logic stand, wouldn’t it also be strange for Beijing to strike a
“1992 consensus” with an ROC the existence of which it does not acknowledge?
In view of a spate of recent incidents denigrating Taiwan — the WHO letter to
the European Parliament’s Taiwan Friendship Group saying that its consistent
policy has been to refer to the nation as “Taiwan, China”; the Venice Film
festival’s labeling of the Taiwan-produced film Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq
Bale as made in “China, Taiwan” — it is obvious that a cross-strait consensus
does not exist.
It is already pathetic that the Ma government believes in a consensus that does
not really exist, but it is downright chicken-hearted when the government knows
that it has been taken advantage of, but takes no action to correct the
situation.
|
