Share this

May 11, 2011

GG, Taiwan Affairs Office.

Well there you go

As for the second question, The '92 consensus  is the vital foundation of political trust and development of negotiations. If that foundation is avoided or denied, then cross strait negotiations and the peaceful development of cross-strait relations have no place to begin. 

In other words, China is already threatening a drastic or even war-like shift in relations should Tsai Ing-wen be elected, or the DPP gain a legislative majority (the more important goal).


Carlos said...

It bothers the hell out of me, but I wouldn't hold it against the DPP if it capitulated on the '92 consensus. The whole thing is full of lies anyway (not just the '92 consensus, but the whole One China thing, and the KMT's promises to uphold "the nation's" sovereignty). So what if the DPP joins in the lie-fest? We all know what their goals are anyway.

阿牛 said...

You know that's a good point. If the entire thing is a fantasy anyway, why not...

Haven't thought about it before but worth considering.

justrecently said...

So what if the DPP joins in the lie-fest?

They may have to... but it wouldn't go down well with their constituencies. In those terms, both a KMT- or DPP-led governments may face certain constraints when communicating with the Taiwanese public. Besides, the 92 consensus came into life during Lee Teng-hui's presidency, and Lee wasn't quite the KMT-man Chiang Ching-kuo thought he was.

I believe that winning a majority in the Legislative Yuan is as important as winning the presidency, but not more important. Divided government sucks, either way.

Gilman Grundy said...

We saw these lame mind-games back in 1996. Hopefully the Taiwanese people will ignore it in 2012 as they did then, all the signs show that this will be the case.

At any rate, the mainland still doesn't have the resources to be sure of pulling off a successful invasion, nor is it likely to for 5-10 years, so it's all bluff.

Anonymous said...

I wonder - has anyone on "the other side" explicitly stated what, or what their understanding of, the "'92 Consensus" is? Is it in writing anywhere?