|
Holding on to a
vague, fabricated consensus
By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒
“One China, two governments” was recently suggested by Chu Shulong (楚樹龍), deputy
director of the Institute of International Strategic and Development Studies at
Tsinghua University in Beijing, as an alternative framework for cross-strait
relations. China has not responded to his idea. In Taiwan, meanwhile, President
Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) did respond, and with a degree of urgency, saying that the
concept was open to discussion.
The idea of “one China, two governments,” if accepted, would overturn the
so-called “1992 consensus,” a concept that was essentially fabricated anyway. As
such, the new suggestion is a slap in the face for Ma. It is funny he never
considered the “1992 consensus” open for discussion.
The biggest difference between Chu’s idea and the “1992 consensus” is that the
reason Ma keeps banging on about the latter is to maintain the sole, and
non-negotiable, precondition for cross-strait negotiations. He has said that the
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should not abandon the “consensus” even if it
wins the next presidential election. In “one country, two governments,” China
now has another argument, demonstrating that the “1992 consensus” is not set in
stone after all, and that it can be replaced. Indeed, if “one country, two
governments” did become official Chinese policy, Ma’s “consensus” would quickly
become obsolete.
Chu’s idea is but one way in which China and Taiwan could proceed. Whether it is
workable, or whether it could actually succeed, is beside the point. What is
important is the train of thought that led Chu to his conclusion.
He says that if China and Taiwan want to maintain relatively long-term and
stable relations, they need to reach a bilateral agreement and establish an
appropriate framework. According to Chu, the current formulations, the “1992
consensus” and even “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,”
are interpreted differently by each side, and either side could conceivably
unilaterally change the situation at any time.
He certainly has a point. Precisely because the “1992 consensus” is a
fabrication, the idea of “one China” that rests on it remains open to
interpretation. If the “consensus” really is as Ma says it is, and that
documentation exists, then there must have been a formal agreement at one point.
And if this is the case, how can one maintain that any part of it is open to
interpretation, or that Chu has a leg to stand on in his argument?
Ma berates DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for not recognizing the “1992
consensus,” saying that she is not facing up to reality. That is your reality,
Ma, and it is a bubble recently burst by a Chinese academic. The “1992
consensus” has been held up as some kind of principle that can be used to
neutralize the pro--independence movement and facilitate eventual unification,
but now it has been exposed for the fake it is. Even the Chinese-language United
Daily News, considered to be a deep-blue newspaper, has had to adjust its
position on the matter.
Until recently, the newpaper has consistently attacked Tsai over her position on
the “consensus,” its main point being that the DPP has nothing else to offer
Taiwan if it denies the “1992 consensus.” Now that an alternative, the “one
China, two governments” idea has appeared on the scene, the paper has changed
its tune, saying that there is no need to hide behind the rather vague “1992
consensus.”
The United Daily News itself concedes that the “1992 consensus” is vague, and
admits that the reason behind it is to obfuscate the issue. What more needs to
be said?
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
|
