Romance of the Three Kingdoms

You may be familiar with the opening line of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a famous novel from the late Yuan-early Ming period. As Wikipedia translates it,

The world under heaven, after a long period of division, will be united; after a long period of union, will be divided.  話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分。

A heavy sentence like that carries a lot of weight when applied to the Taiwan situation, especially as Taiwan and China are undeniably in dis-union, regardless of how one views sovereignty issues.

And as you also might imagine, the metaphor might come to seem prophetic if you switch up the opening phrase to "after a long period of unity, will be divided; after a long period of division, will be united." And that's exactly what President Ma Ying-jeou said June 28th when attending a ceremony conferring promotions of higher-level ROC military officers. Of all possible places.

The context of this remark is even more baffling to me:

他表示，中國歷史上分分合合，合久必分、分久必合，但不論那一次分？那一次合？都靠戰爭解決；這次是第一次用和平解決爭端，這是中華民族、炎黃子孫的創舉，大家應該要有這個勇氣，把這段歷史寫好。 [President Ma] said that Chinese history was full of both division and unity; after a long period of unity it must divide, and after a long period of division it must be united. But when to divide? When to unite? Both had always been decided by war. Yet this time is the first time that peaceful methods have been used, a pioneering effort of the Zhonghua Minzu and the decedents of the Yellow Emperor. Everyone should have courage and make sure this section of history is written well [A-gu: aka, a peaceful union comes to fruition].

I find this a remarkably strong statement of the KMT's aspirations to realize unification. That degree of directness is not at all typical: remember how the President did a 180 after his 'ultimate unification' (終極統一) remark back in 2007ish, and how the KMT constantly accused the Greens of "smearing" Ma when they trotted out his own words? Or how the KMT threatened to sue DPP politicians for harping on the "One China Market" (一中市場) philosophy of Vincent Siew?  So I was just stunned to see this remark at all, much less this close to the election, much less at a military ceremony at a time where Ma's administration  spends much media time defending their commitment to the country's defense.

But I was completely beside myself to find that while newspapers had picked it up, the remark wasn't making the sort of waves I would have expected. I mean, this is GOLDEN material for DPP election ads. What am I missing here?   

Still bad

When you're wrong, you're wrong. And my comment on a recent Arthur Dent post at Letters from Taiwan, in which I imply that Ma was trying to justify martial law, is off the mark.

Forget Ma's implication that only "peace" across the strait (which apparently we didn't have before Ma saved us) can prevent the re-institution of martial law. That claim is ridiculous and borders on infuriating, and it reminds me that the KMT called for martial law during the Oust A-bian campaign. The KMT was hoping for a coup or revolt if they could goad A-bian into declaring it.

I cross-referenced the Central Daily News article about Ma's speech commemorating lifting martial law with both the pan-green champion Liberty Times and that bastion of pan-blue thought, the United Daily News. I think it's fair to say Ma's comment looked something like this excerpt out of the CDN article:

為什麼會有戒嚴，是因為內戰，戰爭的發生，才會使得許多限制、乃至剝奪自由與人權的行動合理化。

Martial law was declared because of the [Chinese] civil war. War is the reason why restrictions or even deprivation of freedom and human rights are rationalized.

So Ma is not justifying the declaration of martial law.

Still, I am not comfortable with Ma's tendency to conclude that getting closer to China is both the cure-all solution to all our problems and the reason for all good outcomes. For example, today's Taipei Times leads with this story:

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday said his opening of the World Games as president of the Republic of China (ROC) was the result of improved cross-strait relations under his administration.

This is simply laughable. The Chinese boycotted the event and Ma came because the Kaohsiung mayor invited him. The games themselves were scheduled long before Ma was president. Ma's reasoning here is so deluded you have to wonder if he really takes us all for fools or if he is, perhaps, off his rocker.

What's all the fuss about?

The Taipei Times is reporting that KMT chairman Wu Po-hsiung is bowing out to let Ma run for party chairmanship, though rumors have been flying that Wu was less than happy with Ma's decision to run and even questioned why he wanted the office.

Taiwan Echo has already covered Ma Ying-jeou's complete reversal on this matter, as before the election he promised not to ever run for party chair while president. But I am reminded that this is not the first time we've seen this debate play out.

Former president Chen Shui-bian promised too, before his first term, to avoid all political party activities including taking the chairmanship; that decision was reversed on July 14, 2002. At that time, the green media was sympathetic to the DPP that this move would help the party govern better and consolidate policy. The DPP even altered its rules at that time to ensure the president would be an automatic party chairman during times the DPP had executive power. Chen left the post after the failure to secure a pan-green majority in the 2004 Legislative Yuan election.

Just as the green media supported Chen's decision to become party chair in 2002 and is now spreading ominous warnings about Ma will bring back the party-state (just check out Liberty Times editorials from earlier this week), you would not be surprised to learn that blue media today is 100% supportive of Ma's decision to take over the party chairmanship, while in 2002 they attacked Chen's reversal as "a new path a-kin to the Chinese Communist Party," an inability to separate party and government and a move toward dictatorship. (the links above, by the way, show the double standards used by blue papers then and now; unfortunately it is tougher to find comparable archives online from green-leaning papers from July 2002).

Knowing the media is too infatuated with their own party identity to give us a reasonable analysis of this issue, what are we to make of it? Does having a president who is also his party's chairman help or hurt the country? Does it help or hurt his party? Does it even matter?

I myself am theoretically in that last camp, and believe the president has tremendous influence even when he is not head of his party. At the same time, in a "hard party" based on the Leninist organizational model like the KMT, I can see why President Ma would want to control the chairmanship to give him power to suppress or diffuse dissent from within his own ranks -- and I can see why that is so scary to so many of us that don't trust the KMT.

But at the end of the day, I still feel this uproar is much ado about nothing. I don't see Ma's taking this office as consequential to party or domestic affairs.

The real different will be that in the future, Ma Ying-jeou and not Wu Po-hsiung will meet with CCP leader Hu Jintao. That will probably not actually change any of the practical outcomes of KMT-CCP discussions, but it will provide a different level of symbolism for those meetings.

Cross-posted to Taiwan Matters!

Ma's selective memory

I need not demonstrate just how absurd it is for Ma Ying-jeou to inject himself into history as a formative cause of Taiwan's democratization; his public record demonstrates open opposition to every slow step from the lifting of martial law to the election of the legislature to the direct election of the president. So when I read these paragraphs about his rememberance of Chiang Ching-kuo, I can only hope this is a belated April Fool's joke. Emphasis mine in first pargraph, his own in the last; sorry, no translation:

民國67年（1978）12月15日，美國總統卡特（Jimmy Carter） 宣布與中華民國斷交、廢約、撤軍，全國震動。次年，我在《聯合報》海外版數次投稿，其中一篇名為「歡迎民主、反對獨立」，就主張「臺灣要民主化，但不能走臺獨的路」，當時流亡在美的一位臺灣著名反對派領袖，也認為此一觀點可以接受。另外一篇名為「消除幻覺、自立自強」，評論美國總統卡特被高華德（Barry M. Goldwater）參議員指控違反憲法、不顧國會、單獨終止「中美共同防禦條約」的訟案，提醒國人不要寄望於訴訟的勝利，而要自立自強，才有前途。另外，那一年我也在《中央日報》海外版寫過一篇「促進中國大陸的臺灣化」的文章，探討如何讓當時大陸留美學生了解臺灣經驗，帶回大陸。當時我在海外的言論，可能已引起了政府的注意與重視。
...

那年10月，經國先生健康已經大不如前，出席國慶大會都要坐輪椅。11月間，他兩度找我去大直的七海寓所，直接到他的臥房跟他談話。那段時間，我去過七海寓所幾次，都是為了外賓訪問，在客廳擔任傳譯。這次卻不是去作傳譯工作。這也是我第一次進入他的臥房，房中擺設家具之素樸，到了簡陋的程度，令人驚訝。這也是第一次看到他躺在床上，他健康的惡化，又讓我憂慮，更是第一次他躺著跟我說話，使我意識到事態不尋常。他問我：「中央民意代表的案子規劃得怎麼樣？」。我向他報告：大致順利，但有人提議增設「大陸代表」，以代表我國的大陸地區，引起爭議。經國先生當時問我：「英九，去查查看民國38年政府遷臺的時候，有沒有宣布我們在這裡還是代表全中國？」我當場就說：「我印象中好像沒有，但我去查查看。」

我回去查了總統府公報，當年12月7日中央政府從成都遷到臺北，並沒有作過任何宣布。一週後，我第二次奉召到七海寓所，還是在他的臥房，他還是躺在床上跟我談話。我向他報告查詢的結果，他說：「中華民國憲法，就是中華民國的法統。依照憲法選出來的中央民意代表，就可以代表中華民國的法統，不必再增設大陸代表。」 我當時聽了，真有說不出來的欣慰。因為我本身就反對在未來的國會設置大陸代表，因為既不合理，也行不通。如果能這樣做，為何36年前第一屆立法委員任滿時不做呢？為什麼要等36年呢？這是完全說不通的，人民絕對不能接受，所以我當然反對。經國先生的決定，解開了當時的一個死結。許多資深中央民意代表雖然不滿意，也不便大聲反對。如果他當時不是如此裁決，必然會造成極大的爭議，也必然使外界質疑政府推動政治民主化的誠意。

Dissecting the Ma interview

Taipei Times leads today with an exclusive interview of Ma Ying-jeou. Everyone has different interests, and I prefer to let someone else cover the economic aspects of the interview, but I'm going to focus on some of the sovereignty issues:

Taipei Times: Do you think Taiwan is a normal country?

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九): The Taiwanese people elect their own president and legislature and govern themselves. Do you think that is normal or not normal?

Frankly, I have to agree with his answer; I'm one of those that believes Taiwan is a free and sovereign country, independent from the People's Republic of China, despite the lack of international recognition. Though that is not exactly Ma's position.

But here is where Ma's clear willingness to divorce policy from reality become more clear:

TT: Then, Mr President, do you mean you will accept the “one China” framework?

Ma: The Republic of China [ROC] Constitution was enacted in 1946 and implemented in 1947. The [PRC] was not yet established. It was not established until 1949.

There was only one China when the ROC Constitution was enacted. So the ROC Constitution was not for “two Chinas.” [emphasis mine]

So, assuming the translation is clear and that Ma did not misspeak, our president accepts that there are in fact two Chinas, the ROC and PRC, though there was only one when the constitution was written. Yet Ma insists on a One China policy that clearly contradicts the reality he just outlined.

And I think this is exactly the line the follow up question should have taken. Does the PRC exist? Is the PRC just an illegitimate bandit government illegally controlling ROC territory? What boundaries does the president think the ROC has? If the constitution of the ROC is so clearly in conflict with reality, why shouldn't it be revised? Etc. These are the questions that Ma will have only ridiculous answers to.

Instead, the interviewer directs to what I consider relatively irrelevant questions.

TT: But do you think Hu’s “one China” refers to the “ROC” or the “People’s Republic of China”?

Ma: No matter what he thinks, we think “one China” refers to the ROC. This is what we insisted in 1992 and we have never changed that position since.

I mean, come on. What do you think Hu's one China refers to? Weak.

TT: But does the explanation that “one China” refers to the ROC conform to the international reality?

Ma: If we do not interpret it this way, do you think we should say “one China” refers to the “PRC”?

Do you remember when former [US] president George W. Bush talked to Chinese President Hu Jintao on March 26 last year, Hu said over the telephone that both sides of the Taiwan Strait accept the “one China” principle but have different interpretations of “one China.” That is what we call “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” That is the only interpretation according to our Constitution.

I say again, I don't care if we get formal recognition from other countries, so long as Taiwan is not controlled by Beijing and so long as we can have practical relations with others; but Ma's constitution-focused answers should prompt the question, "Isn't the constitution in clear contradiction with both reality and the will of the people, since neither mainland Chinese nor Taiwanese want the ROC to rule the mainland? Shouldn't the constitution be amended?"

TT: But apart from Taiwan’s allies, all countries think Beijing is the only representative of China.

Ma: If we agree with those countries, there is no room for Taiwan to survive.

I think this answer is fascinating because, assuming Ma is well intentioned and doesn't want to sell out Taiwan or see unification, this answer reveals half of what Ma thinks -- that this "One China = ROC" policy is in fact the only realistic policy Taiwan can adopt.

TT: Some say that we are too naive on the “one China” issue. It’s not a matter of confidence, but a matter of international reality.

Ma: If we refuse to sign agreements, our products will be taxed with higher tariffs in mainland and local industries will not survive. Is this less naive?

I consider the question unfocused and the answer evasive. In my mind, the questions reveals the biggest problem with the green's attacks on Ma's 'One China' policy. We can't win the argument by saying "Hu says A, but we say B, and most people believe A." Because most people in Taiwan will just say, "who cares?"

We have to say "This whole argument is absurd" and expose the true ridonkulous nature of the KMT's position instead of allowing the PRC position to enter the picture. If anyone's talking about the PRC position, it should not be about their explanation of "One China," but rather their unwavering determination to force subordination on Taiwan, like it or not.

And here is Ma's best and most convincing answer, I think. Emphasis mine:

TT: Will there be any supplementary measures to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and national interests if the CECA is signed?

Ma: Take the agreement on cross-strait direct flights, for example: What did we lose by signing the agreement? We opened eight airports [to the flights], while mainland opened 11 airports and later upped it to 21 airports for cross-strait direct flights.

What did we lose? Did we consider it a domestic route? Or is it a special air route? Did we say that Taiwan became part of the PRC after signing the agreement? No, we never made such claims.

We should have confidence in ourselves. Communist China has its own assertions and we have ours. We cannot force it to accept our assertions at this stage and it cannot force Taiwan to accept its ideas either. As to how the international community perceives the [“one China”] issue, it depends on the stances of different countries. Some countries agree with us, and our allies won’t think Taiwan becomes part of communist China when it signs an agreement.

Those who are familiar with international relations know that major countries recognize the CCP as the only legitimate government of China when establishing diplomatic ties with communist China, but when it comes to the relations between communist China and Taiwan, those countries do not consider Taiwan a part of the PRC. There are several models adopted by different countries in this matter....

Does the US need communist China’s agreement to send someone to Taiwan? No, they don’t. So you need to understand that although these countries do not recognize us officially, they do not deny us, either. If they denied us as a country, why would they send people here and develop relations with us? The US sold weapons to Taiwan. Does the US think it is selling weapons to a ghost country?

So, again assuming Ma is anti-unification, he thinks One China is not only a necessary policy, but adopting a One China policy incurs no practical damage at all and gives Beijing no additional control at all.

Whatever the merits of Ma's argument, and whatever his secret thoughts on unification, I think we should treat this as his position -- that the One China policy is both necessary and beneficial with no negative side effects. That way we can both argue the merits of these claims and point out the absurdity of the whole "One China" formulation.

Now for the most comic answer:

TT: Does Taiwan depend on China too much economically?

Ma: It has been so since the former DPP government and our economic growth rate increased rapidly during that period of time....

So far we have not seen any attempts by communist China to force Taiwan to do things we cannot accept and we wouldn’t have to accept it if they did so.

Ha! In other words, "Yes, but what are you gonna do and what's the harm to sovereignty so far?"

That explains everything

Last night, in an interview with Taiwan TV (台視), President Ma Ying-jeou, man with law degree, discussed criminalizing holding assets from unknown sources. He came out in support of doing so, despite having opposed it while he was Minister of Justice in the past.

In attempt to cover for his about face on this policy, Ma said that what he opposed criminalizing holding assets from unknown sources "without cause" because "it goes against the principle of "presumed innocence" (until proven guilty); but if someone were accused of corruption, then it would not violate their human rights to criminalize their holding of assets from unknown sources.

In other words, according to our law degree holding, Harvard grad president, being accused of corruption is a good enough reason to overturn the principle of presumed innocence until proven guilty.

Hat tip: Weichen

Ma ventures into the Green Jungle

Following up on his recent interview with the Liberty Times, President Ma Ying-jeou will have television interviews with the two largest green-leaning television news stations, SET-TV and Formosa TV. Should be fun!

As I mentioned, I though the Liberty Times reporter conducting the interview did all right, and that Ma was weak on a few questions in particular, but the tone from the paper seemed a bit overtly hostile and the questions were not Tim Russert enough for my liking.

Meanwhile, Frank Hsieh will begin hosting a radio program.

Ma expresses sympathy to Chinese fears of Cape No. 7

Rumor has it that the Chinese have slowed or may cancel the release of Cape No. 7 in China on grounds that it promotes Japanization.

In an interview with RTI yesterday (which broadcasts mainly to China), President Ma Ying-jeou praised the movie, expressed confidence that China would allow it to run, and responded to questions of Japanization.

Ma pointed out that Taiwan had been colonized by Japan for 50 years, and although lots of people had suffered during that time, there would still be love stories between people.

Quoth Ma: "Although there's been lots of both positive and negative sentiment between Japan and Taiwan, just like with the mainland, people are still people in the end, and human nature is unchangable. If you look at it from this perspective, many situations and stories can be sympathized with. I hope our mainland compatriots can view Cape No. 7 from this angle. "

I would just said, "You've got to be kidding me. What Japanization?"

Dalai bet

With the Dalai Lama ignoring China and expressing interest in coming to Taiwan next year, how much do you want to bet that politically-related complications will prevent his trip? How much do you want to bet that the KMT will actually reject his visa application, if it comes to that? I think Ma & Co. would rather reject his visit than piss off the Chinese at that time.

Between Chen "Giant Ham" Shui-bian and Ma "Roll Over and Hope They Don't Rip Your Entrails Out " Ying-jeou, I'm thinking I need a mental health break from news and politics.

Naturally, I'm not helped out when Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) claims Maokong Gondala structural problems have nothing to do with the previous mayor who ordered the construction without an environmental assessment (for fear the DPP might actually reject it for "political reasons," of course).

Green paper interviews Ma

Liberty Times interviews Ma Ying-jeou in four parts (1 2 3 4), and although the questioning is pretty hostile, I'd say Ma holds his line pretty well. But you also get the sense he is very frustrated with the questioning as well. He is at his weakest when talking about the police taking flags and taking banners from Green protesters' hotel rooms as Chen Yunlin was going to arrive. He has a hard time defending the detentions if you ask me, too.

Also, I believe the Liberty Times failed to ask the kind of questions I'd like to see more of, and instead kept the thought process within the bounds of the media-defined idea of what the issues are. Also, the interviewer makes a critical factual error, claiming the Lien-Hu Joint Announcement (連胡公報) specifically mentions "One China." It does not. But Ma didn't seem to know that either (that's how gotcha questions work sometimes, though; as a politician, you'd rather just not answer the question directly than challenge its premise, for fear of being factually wrong).

... and arbitrary restriction of movement.

Live update from Taipei source: ALL buses bound for Taipei from other places will be banned from the freeway tomorrow. The move is aimed at blocking DPP mobilization efforts. While there's no news on cars, I expect arbitrary ID checks of drivers coming into the city.

Correction/update: I have yet to find any confirmation of this news which came to me by phone from a reliable source, but he was hearing it second hand too, and so far it hasn't checked out. I don't want to be alarmist, and sorry for potentially misleading. But it did sound worth publishing right away when I heard it.

Update: Janice has commented with a clip that seems to confirm the general plan for restriction, but not the details (buses aren't being told they can't come up). Instead (video), it appears police plan on stopping buses on their way up to Taipei to find reasons to detain some people, turn them around or at least cause significant delays. The source of the info is a DPP legislator, and that Kaohsiung County officials have refused to catch people on their end. Thanks Janice!!!!!!!

Update: Chthonic band lead vocalist Freddy wore a T-shirt with "Taiwanese" written on it; he was said to be wearing a "strange outfit" by the police. He walked on Zhangshan N Rd where Chen Yunlin was having dinner with Lien Chan with a coffee in hand. Of course he didn't just happen to be there, but he wasn't doing anything else other than walking and shopping.But the police stopped him telling him to go away.

And another person was asked to give up his Tibetan flag as the police said it's a "lethal weapon."

Poll

Poll: 28% of people who voted for Ma said they're not satisfied with Ma's performance according to poll results mentioned in the pan-blue 新聞夜總會 last night.

Burn

Ouch.

Mine, all mine!

KMT preparing to reclaim NT$240m from Taipei court (Taipei Times)

By Rich Chang STAFF REPORTER Monday, May 26, 2008, Page 3

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is preparing to reclaim the NT$240 million (US$7.87 million) involved in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal involving People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) from the Taipei District Court, a Chinese-language newspaper reported yesterday.

The Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal broke in 1999 when Soong was accused of embezzling millions of dollars during the time he was KMT secretary-general.

Part of the case involved allegations that Soong stole NT$240 million from the KMT and used it to buy US bonds in his son’s name. Soong has said the money was to be used as a gift for members of Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) family in the US and that he did not steal the money.

After news of the scandal broke, Soong attempted to return NT$240 million to the KMT, but then-president and chairman of the KMT Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) refused to accept the funds.

In January 2000, Soong asked the Taipei District Court to take custody of the funds, naming the payee as Lee.

The report in the Chinese-language United Evening News said because civil law stipulates that funds held by the district court are given to the treasury if a payee does not apply to receive them within 10 years, KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Soong recently discussed how to withdraw the money.

The news report said the KMT has asked its attorneys to look into whether Wu can apply to take back the money in his capacity as KMT chairman.

KMT Secretary-General Wu Den-yi (吳敦義) confirmed yesterday that the KMT chairman had been discussing the issue with Soong and Lee.

“I believe that the three will reach a consensus on the issue pretty soon,” he said.

Additional reporting by Mo Yan-chih

On Ma's case

The Liberty Times reports on the Supreme Court's verdict on Ma's case, raising a fascinating fact: the court ruled that Ma's special allowance fund as mayor was a public fund, not some sort of special subsidy that could be used as a salary.

But the Court also said, “The prosecutors’ reasons for appeal were not solid. There was insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict. As a result, we decided to uphold the Taiwan High Court’s verdict.”

And, from what I can tell, the reason the appeal was insufficient was that Ma ended up donating the same amount of money he was pocketing, thus meeting the requirement to spend the money on public and not personal expenses.

Final verdict for Ma here

ICRT reports: "The Taiwan Supreme Court is due to announce its verdict on President-elect Ma
Ying-jeou's case of special discretionary funds very soon. Ma has been acquitted by both the Taipei District Court and the Taiwan High Court."

Don't expect the Supreme Court to overturn the lower verdicts, especially now, and very likely for political reasons: there would be riots, and I doubt the KMT would accept the validity of the ruling.

Someone who read the first verdict mentioned it basically says "This was technically illegal, but so widespread we can't hope to prosecute these cases, and Ma had no intent to break the law," and although that's a pretty shoddy legal basis for an 'innocent' verdict, I think it's just too late. The Supreme Court will not be willing to be the reason the country descends into chaos.

Oh, here's the full text of the Taipei District Court's decision. I especially love this reason for the innocence verdict:

九、 被告未曾如起訴書所載之自白特別費為公款情事

(Roughly) 9. The defendant did not believe, contrary to the prosecution's claim, that the special affairs fund was only for public use.

Point three is quite similar. Well, legally, that's probably true. But Ma did clearly state he knew it was only for public use long before the case came to light.

Of course, that isn't admissible in court.

Update: here's the final verdict. Ma's in the clear.

One other thing about that China trip

I saw on Talking Show on Saturday that China sent Chen Yun-lin (陳雲林) and the vice-governor of Hainan province to meet Taiwan's VP-elect Vincent Siew when he arrived at the Boao Forum.

You know, since it's only polite to send out someone of equal status, right?

President Chen: Listen up, Ma!

President Chen is using his last days in the spotlight to try and influence President-elect Ma Ying-jeou's future direction.

He has called on Ma to uphold four principals in negotiations with China: sovereignty, democracy, peacefulness and equality.

Also, this:

Today, President Chen said that for cross-strait relations, China believes in peaceful unification and 'One Country, Two Systems;' The KMT upholds 'One China, two interpretations' and ultimate unification; and the DPP maintains that Taiwan and China are two countries. These are different roads, different principals, different choices, [the President said.] President Chen emphasized that Taiwan is independent from the People's Republic of China, that they are two countries who do not have jurisdiction over each other, and that the Taiwanese people cannot accept 'One Country, Two Systems.'

總統陳水扁今天表示，兩岸關係，中國是和平統一、一國兩制；國民黨是一中各表，終極統一；民進黨則是台灣與中國，一邊一國； 這就是不同的路線、不同的主張、不同的選擇。他並強調，台灣與中華人民共和國是兩個獨立、互不隸屬的兩個國家，台灣人民絕對不能接受一國兩制。

Notice that Ma's 'One China, two interpretations' implies that the two sides of the strait do have common jurisdiction and are just one country.

Ma and Chen on '92 consensus

Pretty good details in the CNA article here [Chinese]. Chen basically repeated what we all know about the differing positions between the KMT and CCP on this issue; Ma made a breakthrough statement:

馬英九也說，他未來很快要和對方展開很多談判， 從直航、觀光客、經貿、甚至和平協定，都可以測一下 這個說法、基礎（一中各表）是否牢固，「如果對方說 不行，只有一個中國，沒有各自表述，對不起，那我們 不談了，因為無法談。」

Ma Ying-jeou also said that he plans to soon hold discussions over direct flights, tourism, trade and a peace accord [with the Chinese side], which will show the firmness of the "One China, two interpretations" foundation: "If the other side [the 'mainland'] says 'no way,' there is only One China, and no such thing as two interpretations, than I'm sorry, we will not talk with them, because there's no way to talk."

So this is the first time that Ma has effectively admitted some difference between the KMT and CCP positions on just what constitutes the '92 consensus; and it is also the first time Ma has insisted the CCP either not deny "One China, two interpretations" or face the prospect of a not-so China friendly KMT.

Does Ma mean it? Who knows, but I think so. But, notice the lawyer speak: he did not say the Chinese side actually had to agree there's "One China, two interpretations," just that they can't say "no way" and deny its existence.

Does that mean the future '92 consensus will actually be a consensus to ignore the lack of consensus? Or was Ma rather boldly (for him) implying that the CPP must accept "One China, two interpretations" or Ma would not hold discussions?

It's very hard to say what Ma is up to or what he's thinking. In just a few years, he went from a relatively radical unificationist to a self-defined defender of Taiwanese sovereignty promising not to sell out the island. Perhaps he has convinced himself he can accomplish both goals; perhaps one position or the other is really political posturing. I guess we have few options but to wait and see.

Again, though, regardless of whether the '92 consensus is "One China, two interpretations" or "One China" alone, the concept that Taiwan and China are both part of the same country is absurd on the face of it.

Lee-Ma meeting this afternoon

Will update when there are details. And on the unrelated topic of Iraq, I found this fact about Basra a good indication of just how bad the situation is:

The division of the spoils among the armed groups [in Basra] is often quite specific. Fadhila controls the electricity sector and shares power with the Mahdi at the ports; Dawa and Fadhila have a strong grip in the lucrative southern oil operations, and a different branch of Dawa — the one to which Mr. Maliki belongs — holds sway at the Basra airport.