Su's "Taiwan Consensus"

I fully expect Su Chen-chang's phrase of "Taiwan Consensus" will end up defining the DPP position vis-a-vis the KMT come 2012, though I imagine we can expect some internal wrangling between heavy weights for a share of the credit.

Su's statement is summerized in this article:

蘇貞昌認為，台灣歷經四次總統直選，是主權獨立的國家，不隸屬於中華人民共和國，依據憲法，目前名稱是中華民國，改變現狀要全民同意，已是全體國人最大的共識。

Su Chen-chang believes that Taiwan has had four direct presidential elections; that it is a sovereign and independent country,  not part of the People's Republic of China; that according to the constitution, the national name is currently the Republic of China; that changing the status quo [thus defined] must be agreed to by the people as a whole; and that these points already form the broadest consensus [of cross-strait relations] in the country.

Is there a '92 consensus?

We all know the answer is no, and the evidence is in the open every day.

When Ma talks about the importance of the '92 consensus and "One China, two interpretations" to cross-strait relations, China reports it positively, but without mentioning the "One China, two interpretations" part. And it's considered a "good first step" by the Ma administration to tell public officials to refer to China as "the mainland" or "the other side" of the strait.

Thanks, President Ma, for reminding us that Taiwan officials should never use "China" but only "mainland" or "the other side of the Strait" when referring to the PRC.

Frowny face

Saddest part about the Lien Shengwen shooting: when obvious reality conflicts with the rhetoric of political parties, reality loses in the reporting of the news. Apparently the parties would prefer to pretend Lien's shooting was not a case of mistaken identity despite all evidence to the contrary. Way to inflame things, guys.

Rate of posts

You might have noticed my posting rate is way down. This is largely due to me being out of Taiwan and therefore less into the daily political news cycle than I once was. We've been in TX about a year now and it's clearly taken a toll on my blogging.

I feel OK about this, though, considering how well David Reid, Michael Turton, Ben Gordon, Dixteel and Frozen Garlic have been doing on their individual blogs -- not to mention the careful daily attention that goes into posts at Taiwan Matters!

I'll still post my feelings and thoughts as time goes on. I guess I have to ask if anyone would be interested in a slight repositioning of this blog to include US or Texas issues. If so, the post frequency could go up a bit!

Liar?

It seems to me the DPP never manages to call out Ma on the major omission when he claims "Taiwan's future will be decided by its 23 million people," which is that the mechanism for that decision is left unspecified.

I've always been a fan of tying the referendum to that decision , and that's the DPP official policy. But they always seem to forget it to mention it when they criticism Ma on these things. Instead, they call him a liar. To me, the result is the DPP caucus sounds like shrill paranoids.

Happy New Year

Hu Jintao's New Years address, again calling for coerced peaceful unification under "one country, two systems," went unnoticed by most of the blue media which has tried to pretend that China's thrown unification and "one country two systems" out the window.

Meanwhile, the DPP's attempts to equate the KMT and CCP's position on "One China" doesn't seem to garner public attention, and I'm wondering if they won't somehow manage to lose this battle of definitions on the "'92 consensus", which would set the stage for losing the important political contests.

If I were the DPP, I might just minimize using the unclear phrase "'92 consensus" and stick with another couple of slogans: Reject One China 拒絕一中 and also Taiwanese independence is the status quo. Protect the status quo. 台獨就是兩岸現況 維持現況

Or something like that.

New Year's musing: do you remember when the KMT claimed that combining the legislative and presidential election, and making the terms equally wrong, would have been unconstitutional? I do. And then do you remember when they went ahead and did it?

Argh!

This article [CN] shows everything that's wrong with the DPP message on cross-strait relations. President Ma Ying-jeou recently made a big deal about that DPP policy in an interview with media, and there he rhetorically asked Tsai Ying-wen if the DPP accepted the 92 consensus.

Tsai responded by saying how the 92 consensus doesn't exist; just ask President Lee Teng-hui or Koo Chen-fu, Lee's President of the Straits Exchange Foundation and the man who would have been in charge of any talks held under a "'92 consensus."

But Tsai completely misses the larger point, namely, that the DPP cannot accept the '92 consensus because of its definition. The '92 consensus is defined as "Taiwan and China both belong to One China," and the KMT government likes to add a flourish: "The Republic of China is that One China."

No matter which definition you use, it does not reflect reality and it is not at all reasonable. Nor does it reflect the average Taiwanese person's opinion.

If the DPP could remember that not everyone watches their political talk shows every day, maybe they'd realize how few people could tell you off hand what the '92 consensus is. And it's the act of getting that definition out which will win people over to the DPP's side.

Wikileak memos

The Wikileaks release of the diplomatic cables has been accompanied by lots of government grandstanding, but I get the distinct impression that very few real secrets are contained in these documents. As usual, it seems we classify a lot more things than really need to be classified, just to save face. Mostly our own.

And for me, this reinforces the idea that these "secrets" are open topics between the various governments involved; what upsets these officials is that we normal citizens now see what they're talking about behind closed doors. It goes to show how far removed the people are from their "own" governments.

There may be real security implications, but I can't help but feeling the elite all over the world are mostly just miffed that someone broke through their curtain and showed some mostly harmless backroom dealings and offhand comments.

I plan on reading the memos rather extensively for fun.

I thought the police were no longer providing crowd estimates like this one for the recent KMT march. But Hau seems happy with the estimate of 70,000 people.

I'm very excited about watching results for the election roll in -- I will probably make a night of it over here in the States. Or at least a very early morning.

Gag

So Honorary KMT chairman and general nitwit Lien Chan (連戰) got to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao at APEC this year; when talking to the media back in Taiwan, Lien had this to say:

另外，由於明年建國百年，也是辛亥革命百年，大陸國家主席胡錦濤也說，大陸會有隆重紀念活動。

連戰認為，雖然兩岸不可能一起舉辦，但是殊途同歸，歸於國父孫中山先生的精神、思想和主義。

In addition, since next year marks the 100th anniversary of the Xinhai Revolution [the 1911 revolution that established the R.O.C.], mainland Chinese Chairman Hu Jintao also said the mainland will hold commemorative activities.

Lien Chan thinks that although it won't be possible for the two sides of the strait to hold the celebration together, they will arrive at the same destination through different routes, ultimately honoring national father Sun Yat-sen's spirit, thinking and ideology.

Quaint & comically harmless thinking, or ominous?

Negotiating with a ghost

This is pretty funny:

黃光國：「兩岸最大的問題是中共始終不願意面對『中華民國』仍然存在的事實──你不承認『中華民國』，硬是把我當成『鬼』，但兩岸談判、簽署文件總要有對象，難倒你是在跟『鬼』交涉？！」．．． －「兩岸智庫如何攜手共創未來」研討會／台大社科院、2010.11.2

"The biggest problem in cross strait relations is the Chinese Communists' consistent refusal to face the reality that the Republic of China still exists. You refuse to recognize the ROC and insist on treating me as a ghost. But cross strait dialogue and agreements ultimately have to be discussed or signed with somebody, unless of course you are negotiating with a ghost!" -- Hwang Kwang-Kuo [NTU Psych professor] at a think tank discussion conference on cross strait relations at NTU, 11/2/2010.

Professor Hwang's comment apparently drew plenty of laughs from the crowd, but sober and silent reactions from the Chinese delegation of intellectuals, whose think-tanks can obviously not suggest recognizing the ROC unless the Party leadership first makes a decision.

KMT policy: unify ROC territory?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but ...

吳敦義說，兩岸從衝突對立改向和平穩定發展，目的是為降低台灣海峽成為火藥庫的風險。他指出，政府也要捍衛中華民國成為主權完整而獨立的國家，並維護台灣 安全與繁榮，必要的國防武裝力量還是需要 ...

[Premier] Wu Dun-yi said that the two sides of the Taiwan strait had moved from confrontation toward peaceful and stable development, and that the goal of this [policy] is to lower the danger that the Taiwan Strait will become a tinder box. He pointed out that the government also wants to uphold the Republic of China becoming an independent country with complete sovereignty [over its territory] and to protect the safety and prosperity of Taiwan. T do this, the Defense Ministry still requires more weaponry....

What I found fascinating about this, if I"m reading it right, is the implication that the government has the official goal of restoring ROC sovereignty over mainland China. This might be a simple negotiating tactic or it might simply come part and parcel with "One China." Or it might be just as crazy as it sounds.

Or am I reading the Chinese incorrectly?

Mirror, mirror

The AP interviews President Ma...

Any political union, he said, would require Beijing to adopt democracy and respect for human rights, under special scrutiny following the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to jailed China democracy campaigner Liu Xiaobo. Because of such concerns, Ma did not cite any timetable for the process, saying it would be a "long historical" transition....

In between the poles of union and separation, Ma said his government is prepared to discuss political agreements, including security issues, as soon as the priority economic issues are dealt with. He suggested that those political talks could start as early as a second four-year term if he wins re-election in 2012.

"We are not intentionally delaying the talks on political issues. Certainly the economic ones are more important to people here. People also support the idea (of) economy first, politics later," said Ma. Asked if he would move to political talks in a second term once economic issues are dealt with, Ma said "it depends on how fast we move." Political issues, he said, "will come after all the major economic issues are resolved."

Among the crucial economic agreements that first need to be tackled, Ma said, are those on investment guarantees, ways to resolve disputes and tariff and other barriers to the two sides more than US$100 billion in trade.

There's nothing new or particularly surprising in this interview, yet the Ma administration came out to emphasize there is no time table for political talks, that they will not necessarily occur during his second term, and that economic issues come first.

Ma nearly accuses the AP of putting words in his mouth about the negotiations, because all the focus was on the prospect of political talks. Really, it's just that international news outlets chose the juicy bits about political talks for their edited versions of the AP article, and this created a sort of backlash after Taiwan media saw and yelled, "Look what Ma said to the AP!"

How does this keep sailing under the radar?

President Ma Ying-jeou just reiterated, without mincing words, the KMT position that Taiwan and "the mainland" are both part of the same country, the ROC. This is in line with the Chinese position that Taiwan and "the mainland"belong to the same "One China."

Ma stated that the first set of ROC constitutional amendments defined the relationship as "the free area" (Taiwan) and "the mainland area," and that this definition remains the one the KMT is constitutionally obligated to respect.

What is remarkable is how Ma's archaic definition of an ROC encompassing both Taiwan and China would be wildly unpopular if people knew about it, yet despite repeated public statements and subsequent newspaper articles, the KMT position continues to escape most people's attention.

And yet we see with every passing day that the nebulous status quo is increasingly defined as the "One China" framework and all the agreements that rest on it.