tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post3198604268305324558..comments2023-10-06T18:55:46.317+08:00Comments on That's Impossible! Politics from Taiwan: Fire away阿牛http://www.blogger.com/profile/08403972286057197709noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-48182261000197363352011-08-21T14:29:43.116+08:002011-08-21T14:29:43.116+08:00In my article posted on January this year,
九二共識的陷...In my article posted on January this year, <br /><a href="http://tw-i-light.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_7156.html" rel="nofollow">九二共識的陷阱</a>, I observed that the KMT asking Tsai "do you accepted the 92 Consensus" repeatedly was a setup to trick Tsai to admit that there WAS a 92 Consensus. After all, something has to be existed for you to un-accept it. So no matter Tsai answer "accept" or "not accept", she would fall into the KMT trap. <br /><br />But Tsai knew it all too well -- the 92 Consensus was a made-up, so there's nothing to deny. <br /><br />What we are seeing now is the KMT's next trick: fabricating that Tsai accepted it before.Taiwan Echohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018124148446093746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-88279377569057430622011-08-21T13:00:40.142+08:002011-08-21T13:00:40.142+08:00Found a news report back in 2000/6/29, which talke...Found a <a href="http://www.singtao.com/archive/fullstory.asp?andor=or&year1=2000&month1=6&day1=29&year2=2000&month2=6&day2=29&category=all&id=20000629e02&keyword1=&keyword2=" rel="nofollow">news report</a> back in 2000/6/29, which talked about that Tsai Ing-wen clarified that there was no consensus in 1992, and that China's position had always been clear -- the only thing they could accept was the One China Principle. <br /><br />In the news report you cited, Ma campaign spokesman Yin Wei (殷瑋) said that in 2000 <i>Tsai agreed to the 1992 Consensus.</i> It is obviously another twist from the KMT.<br /><br /><br /><i>>>><br />蔡英文緊急澄清兩岸從無共識<br /><br />(記者李逸進報道)對於外傳台灣總統陳水扁首次認同「一個中國各自表述」的九二年兩岸共識﹐陸委會主委蔡英文昨晚召開緊急記者會作出澄清稱﹐兩岸從來就沒有就「一個中國的原則」有共識﹐陳水扁二十七日的講話在精神上、內容上是五二○、六二○講話是一致的。<br /><br />台灣媒體昨日報道﹐陳水扁前日在接見到訪的美國亞洲基金會會長佛納時表示願意接受「一個中國各自表述」的九二年共識﹐行政院大陸委員會蔡主委英文就昨晚就此召開有關記者會時宣布﹕<br /><br />一﹒陳水扁二十七日的談話與六二○記者會的說法﹐在精神上、在內容上是一致的。<br /><br />二﹒一九九二年十月﹐兩岸所派代表在香港舉行會談時﹐雙方曾針對如何解決「一個中國」問題進行具體討論﹐但無法獲致任何結論﹐因此台方建議以「口頭上各自表述」的方式﹐暫時擱置此一爭議﹐大陸稍後也致電台灣﹐表示「尊重並接受台方的建議」。這就是對於「一個中國」問題的爭議﹐兩岸願意以口頭「各自表述」來處理。<br /><br />三、兩岸從來沒有就「一個中國的原則」有共識﹐陳水扁在五二○的演說中﹐已提出共同處理未來「一個中國」的問題﹐就是希望雙方可以先就未來「一個中國」的問題加以討論﹐最後才有雙方是否接受「一個中國原則」的問題。<br /><br />四﹒大陸的立場說得很清楚﹐大陸對「一個中國、各自表述」的說法一直以「一個中國原則」來加以解釋﹐至今也仍堅持「世界上只有一個中國﹐台灣是中國的一部分﹐中華人民共和國是代表中國的唯一合法政府」﹐這是台灣無法接受的。 <br /><br />2000/6/29<br /><<<</i>Taiwan Echohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018124148446093746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-52271905609085646142011-08-21T12:43:33.049+08:002011-08-21T12:43:33.049+08:00This article in the KMT's website (published 2...This <a href="http://www.kmt.org.tw/english/page.aspx?type=article&mnum=113&anum=9607" rel="nofollow">article</a> in the KMT's website (published 2011.5.17) talks about the "92 Consensus".<br /><br />Its main point is: Beijing has made changes in recent years, switching her position slowly from "One China Policy" to "One China, different interpretations" :<br /><br /><i>>>><br />But until recently they have never said that "The essence of the 1992 Consensus is seeking common ground and shelving the differences." Now however, they are. Now, Beijing is saying that "The essence of the 1992 Consensus is seeking common ground and shelving the differences." Since Taipei has long maintained that the 1992 Consensus means One China, Different Interpretations, the two sides have narrowed the gap separating them considerably.<br /><<<</i><br /><br />If Beijing's recent <i>switch</i> of position is toward the "92 Consensus," it means Beijing never want to talk about "One China different interpretations" until recently. Otherwise Beijing didn't have to switch. <br /><br />What the article said undeniably is that there wasn't a consensus back in 1992.<br /><br />This makes this article (as well as KMT's trick) more rediculous --- <b>they use Beijing's moving away from "no consensus in 1992" to prove that Beijing and Taiwan had a consensus in 1992.</b>Taiwan Echohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018124148446093746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-13692790823740426642011-08-21T08:46:28.024+08:002011-08-21T08:46:28.024+08:00it is indeed totally irrelevant, we are playing wo...it is indeed totally irrelevant, we are playing words. both sides had taken what it needed in the part of a "phrase" to satisfy their domestic markets. the consensus, whether you like it or not, it is the basis that guides the relationship now, it is more than a description. i do not see what tsai is looking to achieve by negating this guidance. both sides live in an impossible situation, two decades ago, chinese were too busy trying to build themselves up that they would rather delay the taiwan issue when taiwanese held an advantage but knew time was against them. to date, we see a much stronger china whose confidence is so bloated that it got stuck with taiwanese situation which it wishes not to resolve for a different reason, the pride of a powerful nation, (economically, i sat right next to a chinese business owner from singapore to hong kong and who spent 2 hours complaining to me how his government had been giving preferrential treatments to taiwanese, a view echoed by my local tour guide in beijing!). i do not believe chinese will ever resort to military means to resolve the taiwan situation, but they will be more than happy to conveniently butt out from all their "committment" to us if new situation unfolds, after all, they do have a world to conquer! so what was tsai looking for, a revamp of china taiwan relationship? she underestimates the intellingence people here. be a "consensus" or description, it is something taken by taiwanese in general externally as a shield (taiwan practicalism). does she now want to turn that into internal as a domestic agenda? if it is the case, we need to know what her plan is in the new landscape? joseph wu at least proposed "maccao model"? is that what she wants? we still do not see contingent plan in probably the biggest issue confronting her. instead, we only have cryptic and petite mutterings!! she needs to be more specific...Little Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246527648747320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-47390854646128922482011-08-20T14:24:30.232+08:002011-08-20T14:24:30.232+08:00For your collection:
Su Chi admits the `1992 cons...For your collection:<br /><br /><b>Su Chi admits the `1992 consensus' was made up</b><br /><a href="http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/02/22/2003294106" rel="nofollow">http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/02/22/2003294106</a><br /><br />Quote:<br /><br /><i>"Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi (蘇起) yesterday admitted that he made up the term "1992 consensus" in 2000"</i><br /><br /><i>"Su said he made up the term "1992 consensus" as a replacement for the expression "each side with its own interpretation" in order to benefit cross-strait development."</i><br /><br /><i>When asked by reporters for a response yesterday, Su said he did invent the term, which was meant to encourage observers to think that "each side has its own interpretation on the meaning of `one China.'"</i><br /><br />That is, he made up a term "1992 consensus" to describe a meeting of no consensus. <br /><br />In his <a href="http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/NS/091/NS-B-091-023.htm" rel="nofollow">article</a> that was used as an introduction to a book (published 2002, probably the one you are talking about) to promote the "1992 consensus", Su Chi wrote,<br /><br /><i>中共方面起先一直沒有否認這八個字,直到康乃爾訪問與飛彈危機以後的1996年11月才首次否認「一個中國,各自表述」共識,並指責我方違反一中原則</i><br /><br /><i>At first, China Communist didn't deny it (the "One China, different interpretations"). After Lee DH visited Cornell and the 1996 cross-trait missile crisis, China Communist denied it the first time, blaming us violate the One China Principle.</i><br /><br />What Su Chi said in his own words here:<br /><br />1. China considered "One China, different interpretations" is a violation of One China Principle.<br /><br />2. China never accepted it;<br /><br />Therefore, in his own words, he made it very clear that there's no consensus exists. The "1992 consensus" is nothing but a lie made up by no one else but himself.<br /><br /><br />One thing we have to be clear is: "One China, different interpretations" is NOT the same as "1992 consensus".<br /><br />"One China, different interpretations" was the position of Taiwan gov, to which China denied. It is a unilateral claim so you can claim the ass out all by yourself without anyone's consensus. <br /><br />But a "consensus" is bilateral. If there were a "1992 Consenses," China would have accepted it. But China never did.<br /> <br />Therefore, <b>Tsai or CSB may have mentioned "One China, different interpretations" in the past, but that is totally irrevelent, because even if that exists, it is still a unilateral claim and nothing to do with any consensus.</b><br /><br />The trick the KMT is playing is: pulling out some words that the CSB gov might have claimed on "One China, different interpretations", and twisted it into "Green gov also accepted the 1992 Consesus", just like the way they twisted an unilateral claim into a consensus.Taiwan Echohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018124148446093746noreply@blogger.com