In the wake of Friday’s historic inter-Korean summit, the inevitable happened, with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen making a purely symbolic gesture to Beijing. Her “olive branch” moment came when she announced she would be willing to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping “for peace and stability.”
Tsai’s move was symbolic because she also stated that such a meeting would have to be “without any political precondition and on an equal footing.”
This makes the meeting impossible. It was also laden with irony given that it is the refusal of her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to bow to a political precondition set by Beijing that has led to a souring of relations in the Taiwan Strait and the usual “heightened tensions.”
The root of the problematic political precondition is one word, and the patent absurdity of how the problem came about becomes clear when you unpack its brief history.
The 1992 Consensus
The only time the leaders of Taiwan and China have met since the end of China’s Civil War in 1950 – Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek last met in Chongqing in 1945 after the defeat of the Japanese – was in Singapore in November 2016.
The meeting was made possible by former Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou’s political position on the question of one China. Specifically, Ma adhered to the so-called 1992 Consensus, which its supporters maintain provides wiggle room for both sides to agree that there is only one China but to disagree on what that is.
For the People’s Republic of China (PRC), acknowledgment of the so-called consensus should be a prelude to negotiations leading to unification. Unfortunately, and creating an irresolvable stalemate, neither side in 1992 appears to have used the word “consensus.” Taiwan’s ruling DPP argue there never was one, and some of those involved in the negotiations agree.
“Consensus denialists,” to coin a term, broadly argue that the talks of 1992 were never more than a tacit verbal “agreement” to disagree, and reported events appear to support that.
“Consensus denialists,” to coin a term, broadly argue that the talks of 1992 were never more than a tacit verbal “agreement” to disagree, and reported events appear to support that.
Under then President Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan’s Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) met in Hong Kong.
Several weeks after the meeting, apparently, in order to break an impasse in negotiations, ARATS agreed to an SEF proposal that both sides could have their own verbal definitions of what constitutes one China, a breakthrough usually summed up as “one China, respective definitions.”
But the water is muddied by the fact that Lee has publicly called the idea that a consensus was reached a fabrication, and in 2006 Nationalist Party Legislator Su Chi admitted he made the term up eight years after the negotiations between SEF and ARATS took place.
Su, who was head of Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) at the time of the talks, said he invented the term “1992 Consensus” ahead of the DPP coming to power in 2000 because it “sounded better” than “one China, respective definitions.”
In a rare case of a US representative discussing the issue, American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt made news in Taiwan in 2016 by saying that SEF chairman Koo Chen-foo used the term “1992 Understanding,” and not consensus. Koo, now deceased, even denied that a consensus was reached.
Holding Taiwan hostage
The fact that this is clearly a mess has not stopped Beijing from running with the term consensus and holding Taiwan hostage to it, as if to say: “We have to pretend to have agreed on something once in order to be able to talk again about anything else.”
During the 2015 meeting between Ma and Xi in Singapore, and in a pointed nod in the direction of the DPP, Xi said: “No matter which party or organization, and no matter what they stood for in the past, as long as the 1992 Consensus and its core values are acknowledged, we stand ready to have contact.”
It is difficult to say what the core values of a consensus that essentially amounts to “we disagree” might be, but Xi in effect ruled out direct negotiations with Tsai and the DPP nearly two years ago, and Tsai has reciprocated in kind in the wake of the inter-Korean Summit.
Meanwhile, if China’s Xi ends up being touted as a peacemaker on the Korean Peninsula – and already some are speculating on a shared Nobel Peace Prize with Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in – it should be seen against the backdrop of an absurd impasse in the Taiwan Strait.
Moreover, it should be seen in the context of live-fire military war games there. and of an ever-assertive China that refuses to budge – even on one hijacked word that a Taiwan legislator made up.
Taiwan should use whatever time it now has to try and find an accommodation with China. Time and tides waits for no man. As China’s strength increases, it will be less forgiving. Taiwan, don’t be fooled by the western presses,thinking tanks, or even western governments pledge of support. You have seen how the will abandon you whenever it suits them.
Stability not uncertainty.
Taiwan needs nuclear fangs
Stephen Wieprecht Taiwan has too many spies. They were developing nukes until American found out and stopped it – http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-worst-nightmare-imagine-if-taiwan-had-nuclear-weapons-25463
America made a great mistaken in 1978. If America let Taiwan have nukes, the issue would be resolved. Mainland China would have normalized relations by now…likely during Deng Xiaoping’s time or Zhang Zemin.
Now Taiwan has too many spies for the Mainland, if the Mainland found out Taiwan was building nukes, they would invade immediately.
Stephen Wieprecht Taiwan should go nuclear
Stephen Wieprecht Cuba, and all other enemies of US in the Middle East should go nuclear
It’s interesting how, in order to paint the Taiwan government as somehow reasonable with its present independence aspirations you need to ignore history, their constitution, and their foreign policy. Taiwan had every opportunity to declare independence from China from 1949 until 1979, they didn’t because they intended to reinvade China one day and conquer them in yet another bloody civil war. This is why their constitution, to this day, still claims all of Chinese territory (including the 11-dash line). I’ll repeat, their government claims to want independence but formally claims to be the legitimate government of all China. Lastly, what does this government want to do with independence that the PRC won’t allow them to? Well that’s obvious, they want to be the next Guam, get covered in U.S. military bases, and be a linchpin of the U.S. "China containment" strategy. Since its founding, the Republic of China government has been a U.S. puppet government willing to do whatever the U.S. government and military desires. This is why they happily support closer ties with the U.S. even when Trump clearly explains how he wants to use them as a negotiating tactic with China…as they have done since 1971.
CORRECT!! THE PRC IS STILL IN THE CHIANG KIA SHEC MENTALLITY .BUT NOT ALL THERE FAULT .THE US DOUBLE CROSSED THE GENERAL BY USING THE CIA TO HELP MAO WIN IN 1949. A FACT THAT NO ONE SPEAKS OF. THE US SAW MAO AS THE STRONGER ONE AND MISTAKENLY TRIED TO CO-OPT MAO. AFTER HIS INTERVENTION IN THE KOREAN CIVIL WAR IN 1950 .HE BECAME A MORTAL AMERICAN ENEMY. IT TOOK NIXON/KISSINGER TWO GLOBALIST TO UNDO THE DAMAGE THAT ENTAILED FOR DECADES BY WRONG AMERICAN POLICY.
Richard Arlen Hahaha,Mao outsmarted white-ass Americans,,,
it’s going to take a lot to convince Taiwan to give up it’s liberty and democracy for a one party dictatorship under emperor Xi
Jason Jean "Remember, these people have been indoctrinated since birth to hate and distrust the Chinese mainland." – A lot of propogranda nonsense by someone who has probably not even been to Taiwan. The majority of Taiwanese do not hate Mainland China, they simply want to live peacefully, and have political autonomy from China’s authoritarian CCP. Taiwanese businessmen have been investing in the PRC, and transferring valuable skills to China for nearly three decades. And over that time, millions of Taiwanese have worked, or traveled in China. They understand the problems and threats that China poses, but they don’t hate the Chinese mainland. You shoud educate yourself before you make these comments.
Aaron Jensen I didn’t say that the indoctrination works. It’s just an attempt. Which explains the Sunflower Movement of Taiwan when mainland China offered them very favorable economic conditions for a closer relationship and it caused massive blowback because the younger generation, brought up in a propaganda-fuelled fear of closer relations with China, retaliated and protested against it. This, despite, as you’ve noticed, over a million Taiwanese now live in mainland China and they are moving there in droves for more opportunities and a better life.