the speech is posted on the taipei times website:
Yawn.
I thought there was s’posd to be some great new announcement or initiative int he speech.
One little question:
What Chiense did Chen use here? He means ‘waishengren’. It’s hardly a new home for those whose parents were born in Taiwan, but still have ‘waishengren’ stamped on their ID cards is it?
Brian
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Yawn.
I thought there was s’posd to be some great new announcement or initiative int he speech.[/quote]
Well, you should’ve come to the 10/10 celebration in Luxembourg where Mrs. Lulling (member of the European Parliament) gave a speech comparing China, Hong-Kong, Singapore and Taiwan in terms of “freedom” and “democracy”. That was fun.
Reuters breakdown:
Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian used his Sunday National Day speech to call for peace talks with arch foe China and urge both sides to adopt a system to prevent an outbreak of conflict in the narrow strait dividing them.
The Taiwan Strait has become one of Asia’s most dangerous flashpoints since Chen’s re-election in March. China is convinced Chen will push the island it sees as a rebel province towards formal statehood in his second four-year term – a move that Beijing has said would lead to war.
In a conciliatory move, Chen said his government was willing to return to the negotiating table based on a 1992 understanding over interpretation of Beijing’s cherished ``one China’’ principle.
Reuters doesn’t elaborate – what exactly is the 1992 consensus and didn’t Chen earlier avoid it like the plague?
Of course, all this talk of compromise is far removed from Chen’s rhetoric during the election campaign that had the blue supporters wetting their knickers.
I think Reuters intrepreted his speech carelessly and probably with a pro-Beijing bias. Nowhere did Chen say he’s willing to accept “one China.” Of course, there’s supposed to be this 1992 “consensus” but the two parties that supposedly negotiated the deal – the KMT and Beijing – say different things about what it exactly means.
The KMT says it means an agreement to disagree – you say PRC and I say ROC – but for Beijing it’s just plain “one China,” no frills.
Now Chen talked about using “the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong,” which is not exactly the same as the phantom “1992 consensus,” which could be a death trap for the DPP. Chen is trying to appear conciliatory without giving away too much in substance, I think.
[quote=“Col Kurtz”]
The KMT says it means an agreement to disagree – you say PRC and I say ROC – but for Beijing it’s just plain “one China,” no frills.[/quote]
The 1992 consensus…
heart of the matter actually, and well… somewhat complex, as none of the parties seem to have any agreement about what that was, adn what it entailed.
My take on that whole affair is:
-
No way in hell Taiwan ROC in 1992 would have agreed to the “One China Principle”. China has claimed that since the late 1990’s only. Moreover, the the President, Lee Denghui, hardly qualifies as a firebrand re-unificationist. He was somewhat lukewarm on the topic already back then, if I recall correctly.
-
China’s interpretation of the “1992 consensus” is a ploy, aimed to make real talks hard to start. If they really wanted to sit down and negotiate with Taiwan, then… Well, they would have been able to live with the original 1992 agreement to disagree. After all, no concessions was made by China with regards to Taiwan’s independence.
-
President Chen is clearly aiming for an interpretation of this akin to the one used in 1992, as basis for restarting talks.
-
Unless China shows a bit more flexibility, this will come to naught, and the President knows that. President Chen has offered olive branches to China before - actually, he spent most of his first term doing so. The effects of this were limited, to put it in mild terms. I hope I will be surprised, but well…
-
the DPP is moving in to capture the middle ground of Taiwanese politics, with ample help provided by the fumbling of the Lian-Song duo… Their replies to the speech provided some comic relief:
Lian Zhan as quoted in the Taipei Times:
One country 2 systems??? Did he really say that, or did Taipei Times get the quote wrong?
James Soong caught with his pants down:
Wonder what he meant. :loco:
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Yawn.
What Chiense did Chen use here? He means ‘waishengren’. It’s hardly a new home for those whose parents were born in Taiwan, but still have ‘waishengren’ stamped on their ID cards is it?
Brian[/quote]
Here is the Chinese.
台灣的故事是這一塊土地上的每一個族群所共同寫下的。這裡是原住民族、客家人、河洛人的原鄉，也是外省新住民的新故鄉、外籍新移民的新天地。
The story of Taiwan is co-authored by every ethnic group of this land. Where we stand is the motherland of the Indigenous, Hakka and Hoklo. It is a new home for the “new settlers,” and a new world for immigrants from other parts of the world.
‘New settlers’ is 外省新住民. 外省 has not been translated into English, making the English a bit obscure. I also find it interesting that Taiwan is the Yuan2xiang1 [original homeland->motherland] of the Indigenous Taiwanese, Hakka, and Hoklo, but is the gu4xiang1 [native place->home] of the mainlanders and the tian1di4 [heaven-earth->world] of immigrants from South East Asia. Is this just variation? Or is there some significance to the differences in teminology.
If it is significant, it would seen to make the unfortunate suggestion that the first three ethnic groups are somehow the primary ethnic groups here by virtue of their early arrival. It also obscures the fact that the indigenous peoples were here before the Hakka or the Taiwanese (sorry, just can’t get used to Hoklo).
‘Waishengren’ is not stamped on anyone’s ID. There is a ‘place of origin’ 本籍 field on ID cards, but that field is no longer used. Some older cards do have the place of origin filled in but it is now usually stamped with and ‘X’ (lot of good that does). In any event, the stamp says something like Changsha, Hunan–not ‘waishengren’. New ID cards will be issued soon (next year I think) and they will not have a place of origin field.
The KMT put the place of origin field on the cards so as to reinforce mainlander loyalty to China and to police the system of semi-apartheid they set up here.
I thought Lien supported the Special State-to-State relationship during his 2000 campaign. If the they now changed their position to “one country, two system” policy, that will be the last nail to KMT’s coffin.
You’re quite right. That was a long-held misconception of mine. I think I got it from my wife. She remembers they used to, and thought they still did. A quick check of her card show it is not the case.
Thanks for the info Feiren.
Brian
I think that will be unfair to specifically refer to Hoklo as Taiwanese, and the others not. Taiwanese should include everyone who think of themselves as being Taiwanese, excluding those who does not.
I thought Lien supported the Special State-to-State relationship during his 2000 campaign. If the they now changed their position to “one country, two system” policy, that will be the last nail to KMT’s coffin.[/quote]
Well, I can’t believe that Lian Zhan actually said that, while he’s good at bumbling, he can’t possibly be that stupid… but you see he was quoted for it in the Taipei Times.
Therefore, what I am fishing for is that a moderator comes out here and tell us a little bit more…
I think that will be unfair to specifically refer to Hoklo as Taiwanese, and the others not. Taiwanese should include everyone who think of themselves as being Taiwanese, excluding those who does not.[/quote]
I agree but what should we call Taiwanese who speak ho-lo-oe? Minnan seems unacceptable because it refers to southern Fujian. Hoklo 河洛 is in some ways even worse because it buys into the myth that today’s Taiwanese are actually descendants of the pure Chinese from the Yellow River valley (河 means the Yellow River and 洛 means the Luo river in northern China). It’s kind of like fundamentalists who call themselves things like ‘Children of Zion’.
I suppose my bigger problem is that people in Taiwan call Hoklo Taiwanese without any real sense that they are excluding others. It just sounds artificial and overly-politically correct to insist on Hoklo. Of the two, I think Minnan is better because at least there is a real connection to Fujian. Maybe we need to go with the American solution of hyphenated identities Minnan-Taiwanese, Hakka-Taiwanese, Ami-Taiwanese. (ugh!)
Anyway I don’t have a solution for this. Maybe Hoklo is the best of a bunch of bad choices. sigh.
Moderator–a split?
I thought Lien supported the Special State-to-State relationship during his 2000 campaign. If the they now changed their position to “one country, two system” policy, that will be the last nail to KMT’s coffin.[/quote]
Well, I can’t believe that Lian Zhan actually said that, while he’s good at bumbling, he can’t possibly be that stupid… but you see he was quoted for it in the Taipei Times.
Therefore, what I am fishing for is that a moderator comes out here and tell us a little bit more…[/quote]
I am having trouble finding the actual quote, but there are similar summaries in both the China Times and the Liberty Times:
news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/n … 12,00.html
libertytimes.com.tw/2004/new … ay-fo1.htm
Here is the Libert Times version:
國民黨主席連戰昨天指出，陳水扁過去曾很明確的講九二共識就是一國兩制，他完全反對，現在又說要以九二香港會談為基礎推動兩岸復談，到底什麼意思，是不是要接受一國兩制，陳水扁要說清楚。
KMT Chairman Lien Chan said yesterday that Chen Shui-bian had said he strongly opposed the 1992 consensus which Chen equated with the ‘One country two systems’ . Now Chen is saying that the 1992 Hong Kong talks can serve as a basis for talks with China. What does this mean? Does it mean that Chen now accepts ‘One country two systems’? Chen needs to explain himself clearly.
###################
While Lien’s logic is awful, he is clearly NOT saying that he supports ‘One country two systems’. The TT got this horribly wrong.
The China Times article (see URL above) also says:
#########################
他說，今天有人推動「制憲」、「正名」來改變國號、國體，將把中華民國帶入戰爭的危機，「和平統一、一國兩制」的主張也對我國產生重大威脅，我們要立足台灣，勇敢、堅定捍衛中華民國。
Lien said that today we have people advocating the institution of a new constitution and changing the nation’s name to Taiwan. These changes to the name of the nation and to the nature of the state are leading the Republic of China to the brink of war. ‘Peaceful unification’ and ‘One country two systems’ are proposals that also pose a serious threat to our country. We need to make a stand on Taiwan and defend the Republic of China bravely and resolutely.
####################
However foolish his ideas may be, Lien is definitely opposed to one country two systems.
Are you sure Minnan is a better term? Because it means “insects underneath the door, from the south”. Doesn’t sound too polite, does it? 
That’s like referring to someone as southern ngger (sorry for the foul language) in America, but I guess these type of things are more typically accepted in the Chinese language. You can notice lots of things similar to this in everyday words.
I don’t think there’s any problem with the term Taiwanese when to the people, but if referring to the language then some might protest a bit. But if anyone feel excluded just because we refer to ourselves as Taiwanese, then they got some serious mental issues, because isn’t it them would themselves don’t want to be refer to as Taiwanese? Otherwise where’s the exclusion. But there’s still a problem to call Hakka as Hakka, but Hoklo as Taiwanese.
I am just babbling. 
[quote=“Feiren”] Here is the Liberty Times version:
KMT Chairman Lien Chan said yesterday that Chen Shui-bian had said he strongly opposed the 1992 consensus which Chen equated with the ‘One country two systems’ . Now Chen is saying that the 1992 Hong Kong talks can serve as a basis for talks with China. What does this mean? Does it mean that Chen now accepts ‘One country two systems’? Chen needs to explain himself clearly.
While Lien’s logic is awful, he is clearly NOT saying that he supports ‘One country two systems’. The TT got this horribly wrong.[/quote]
Thanks, that clears things up a bit.
Now, while we can agree that Lien’s logic is truly awful, he words actually makes sense towards a certain group (because they are willing to ignore any flaws in his logic for the sake of their holy anti-Taiwan campaign).
But he does points out one thing, which is that Chen is just playing with words, in my mind, Chen just says too much and does too little. (I am calling Chen a gutless coward who doesn’t dare to push forward the agendas). Ours (not yours) hope rest entirely on Lee (TSU) to put the pressure on, Lee will push forwards a true new Constitution while Chen changed his stance on this issue (I remember you calling TSU too radical, while I know lots of pro-Green votes are switching their supports from DPP to TSU).
Hmmm. I would say that Lian Zhan and James Song got caught badly by the President’s speech, and that they weren’t good enough to think enough on their feet to come up with a credible answer.
What a smart politician would do was to:
- Agree with the general direction, and the change of course.
- Go for fine points, and claiming that he was too vague.
- Ask why the position changed. (Flip-flopping would be the term)
- Offer a credible alternative.
however, as the blue boys are ideologically bankrupt, Lian Zhan just spoke nonsense instead, teasing the President as a possible “One Country - 2 systems” supporter.
Gotta be interesting ot see how the Chinese respond to this.
However, we will have to wait for them to make up their minds on this one - it can often take weeks.
OK, double posting like crazy…
But are there anyone having a credible take on what this speech and this apparent policy change will mean when it comes to the cross strait relationship.
After all, that’s a great deap more important than Sideshow Soong or Lian the clown.
t will have very little effect on relations with China. Since he will not endorse a one China policy, China will refuse to negotiate. So no flights to China anytime soon. That’s why Eva and China Aiir stock went down today.
It may actually worsen things since he has now very publicly said that:
-
Taiwan is the ROC and the ROC is Taiwan.
-
Taiwan’s sovereignity is vested in the 23 million people of Taiwan.,
-
Any resolution of Taiwan’s status will be ratified by the people of Taiwan (and an independent Taiwan is a possible outcome).
If China does not react, it will show that they are once again passively accepting statements that they once said would lead to war.
But the speech was useful in repairing relations with the US. Chen wants the US to see him as someone who is willing to talk to China. The US fell into his trap today by calling his comments ‘constructive.’ They must have read the wire service accounts of the speech.
It also helps domestically. It makes Chen look reasonable and pragmatic and will help attract centrist voters. It also moves the Truth Commission off the front pages.
Yeah, yeah, they have no credibility, but I thought today’s Apple Daily editorial on the talk was interesting. They basically say that this is little chance in hell of going anywhere.
So few people in Taiwan would be behind Chen since it’s too conciliatory for the TSU/chunks of the DPP/Lee Denghui contingent while the KMT/PFP have yet to come around to even accepting Chen’s presidency. Moreover, there was enough ‘taidu’ to turn the CCP off, namely the stuff about the ROC being Taiwan and Taiwan being the ROC.
So the only purpose this serves is to try to curry favor with the US. The Apple Daily speculates that Chen is going forward with this on purposely knowing that the CCP will reject his offer to meet for negotiations. If they do reject this offer out of hand, the CCP will look too hard-line and Taiwan will look reasonable. Which I think is counter to the conventional wisdom within the State Department and much of the Bush administration that Chen is a “dangerous troublemaker.”
I doubt any of the current blue politicians are politically smart.
They might be too dignified to agree with any of Chen’s general directions, too high class for that.
As for accusing Chen of supporting one china, 2 system formula.
I’ve to agree with everyone else here, it isn’t going to be any change unless (a big if) Chen is willing to negotiate under some sort of one China principle.