So why isn’t Frankie in London to bring up these points. Not to mention what is Frankie’s plan?
I’ve heard this comment made several times, and I have absolutely no idea what it means. I don’t understand why the lack of a formal agreement in 1992 means there’s “no basis” for negotiations in the year 2007.
If Ma and Hu agree on a definition of what is now titled the “1992 Consensus”, then obviously the basis for negotiations exist.
I’ve heard this comment made several times, and I have absolutely no idea what it means. I don’t understand why the lack of a formal agreement in 1992 means there’s “no basis” for negotiations in the year 2007.
If Ma and Hu agree on a definition of what is now titled the “1992 Consensus”, then obviously the basis for negotiations exist.[/quote]
If that agreement was just a figment of someones imaginations, then they have to make a new one. Most of those involved in the -92 meeting can not confirm it so …
So… they make a new one and call it “Spirit of 1992 consensus”. Why is this a meaningful legal or political issue?
Hypothetically speaking, if they subsequently find a document dated 1992 initialed by both Wang and Koo… how does that change anything?
But something happened in 1992 that the greens don’t want to give the KMT credit for.
What happened?
The thing the Greens want to take credit but cannot. The ROC officially disagreed with the PRC.
You see, up to this point, the DPP have been disagreeing with the PRC in a one-sided manner.
The KMT has achieved the next level of disagreement. A two-sided unofficial disagreement in official capacity.
Diplomacy is a very tricky thing.
“Why does the '92 consensus have to be ‘ratified’, when
it represents a negotiating position/description of policy?
Maybe you’ll be more comfortable calling it a ‘doctrine’ in English.”
“policy–course of action adopted or proposed by an organization…”
Recalls to mind the quibble about “adopted” and organization".
“economic integration,” just like American economic integration.
Gawd knows the Americans are happy with it!
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
…
[quote=“ccpcannonfodder”]“Why does the '92 consensus have to be ‘ratified’, when
it represents a negotiating position/description of policy?
Maybe you’ll be more comfortable calling it a ‘doctrine’ in English.”
“policy–course of action adopted or proposed by an organization…”
Recalls to mind the quibble about “adopted” and organization".[/quote]
it’s not a question of “ratification.” What happened was this:
<IN 1992>
Chinese Communist Official: I don’t agree with anything you’re saying.
Chinese Nationalist Official: I don’t agree with anything you’re saying.
KMT party Propaganda flacks: It’s the 1992 Consensus!
<15 YEARS LATER>
Ma Ying-jeou: We’re going to negotiate on the basis of the 1992 Consensus
How can you negotiate on the basis of something that doesn’t exist? Ma can’t refer to some agreement with China called the 1992 Consensus because it doesn’t exist. Maybe China will talk – almost certain, I imagine – but not on the basis of nonexisting agreements.
Vorkosigan
[quote=“Vorkosigan”]<15 YEARS LATER>
Ma Ying-jeou: We’re going to negotiate on the basis of the 1992 Consensus
How can you negotiate on the basis of something that doesn’t exist? Ma can’t refer to some agreement with China called the 1992 Consensus because it doesn’t exist. Maybe China will talk – almost certain, I imagine – but not on the basis of nonexisting agreements.[/quote]
I’ll ask you again. If they found a secret letter that confirmed the 1992 consensus… would it matter? To whom would it matter, and why would it matter?
It sure doesn’t matter to me.
Vorkosigan,
You keep side stepping the issue. What alternative does the DPP candidate have to offer?
The DPP doesn’t even have a fax with the PRC to even have make up their own consensus.
What was the last publicized communication the DPP administration had with the PRC? A letter from CSB that was supposed to be carried by James Soong?
I’m sorry, I forgot for a moment that I was interacting with tweedledum and tweedledee, and not rational people. Begging your pardon for wasting all those pixels.
Vorkosigan,
Come again. Let’s say for the sake of argument I concur with the fact the 1992 consensus was no consensus at all. That all parties at the meeting agreed to disagree. And MYJ is offering a carnard in the campaign promise of peace.
Let’s say as a rational person well versed in mature democracies, I am aware all democratic candidates are entitled to make “empty promises” to make themselves more appealing to broadest audience.
My question once again is what is Frankie promising to do once he gets into office. From listen to his debate, it doesn’t seems as specific as MYJ outlined plan. Even if Frankie promised to do the exact same thing as MYJ, wouldn’t the hardliners from his own party rebel?
For those that don’t know the background - here’s the 1992 Consensus:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/02/22/2003294106
Su Chi admits the `1992 consensus’ was made up
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi (蘇起) yesterday admitted that he made up the term “1992 consensus” in 2000, before the KMT handed over power to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Su said he invented the term in order to break the cross-strait deadlock and alleviate tension.
“[Then president] Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was not in the know when the term was invented. Lee found out about it later from the newspaper, but he never mentioned later that it was improper,” said Su, who was chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council at the time.
Su made the remarks yesterday in response to Lee who, during a Taiwan Solidarity Union seminar on Monday, said that the so-called “1992 consensus” was a fiction.
“Little monkey boy’s trying to make up history,” Lee said of Su, daring him to respond on the matter.
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.’”
The term “1992 consensus” is controversial. The KMT has insisted on the existence of a “consensus” between Taiwan and China during a meeting in Hong Kong in November 1992 that both sides should adhere to the “one China” principle.
Since the term appeared, however, the DPP government has insisted that no such consensus existed.
Stating that “no consensus” was reached on the definition of “one China” during the 1992 meeting, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has said that the “1992 meeting” would be a more appropriate term to describe the conference in Hong Kong.
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.
“The wording each side with its own interpretation' of the one China’ principle” had been used from 1992 to 2000. But China didn’t like the each side with its own interpretation' part and the DPP government didn't like the part that said one China,’" Su said.
“On account of these differences and the fact they could have led to more cross-strait tension after the DPP took power, I suggested the new term as a common point that was acceptable to both sides so that Taiwan and China could keep up cross-strait exchanges,” he said.
Su said he initially thought the term could contribute to a resumption of cross-strait negotiations and did not think that it would be unacceptable to the DPP government.
We’re talking about a “term” that’s referring to a statement of mind. Not a legal document, not a precedent-setting court decision, not a constitutional amendment… a statement of mind, an apparatus for thinking about and approaching this particular problem.
Let’s just say there was no acknowledged consensus dating from 1992. So what? Why does that matter? I’m truly baffled.
[quote=“cctang”]We’re talking about a “term” that’s referring to a statement of mind. Not a legal document, not a precedent-setting court decision, not a constitutional amendment… a statement of mind, an apparatus for thinking about and approaching this particular problem.
Let’s just say there was no acknowledged consensus dating from 1992. So what? Why does that matter? I’m truly baffled.[/quote]
Obviously because CSB and his ilk want to shut down a legitimate line of inquiry in policy and thus prevent a bona fide discussion and comparison of real positions, which is this: Taiwanese, which is more important to you, ideological purity or pragmatism? The fact is, there are plenty of things they agreed on in the 1992 that they still agree on today – in particular on almost every practical issue. The disagreements were political, and the whole point of that line of inquiry is to not bring up political differences when talking about practical issues – that is a position that can be discussed, revived if need be, and implemented, and has nothing to do with what you call it or whether it was written down.
In 1992, LTH ultimately decided politics trumped practical matters for a number of reasons. Now DPP believes the same thing – they may believe that external circumstances are so adverse that only by vigilantly guarding a pure ideology and maintaining a state of permanent revolution in Taiwan can Taiwan survive. That’s fine. That’s a real position, too. If that’s indeed the position, then just spit it out and let people judge it on its merits. Instead, you get this asinine bullshit about who coined the term “1992 concensus,” whether there is such a term, or whether anybody signed anything, and if so, was it in ink or typed.
[quote=“zeugmite”]Now DPP believes the same thing – they may believe that external circumstances are so adverse that only by vigilantly guarding a pure ideology and maintaining a state of permanent revolution in Taiwan can Taiwan survive. That’s fine. That’s a real position, too. If that’s indeed the position, then just spit it out and let people judge it on its merits. Instead, you get this asinine bullshit about who coined the term “1992 concensus,” whether there is such a term, or whether anybody signed anything, and if so, was it in ink or typed.[/quote] I agree with a lot of what you said but if you want to talk about “let’s just say it” then why make up stories about national policy? Who wants politicians duping the public about what was actually said in these meetings?? As you said there are enough practical common veiwpoints to build on that there is no need to float some imaginary banner to operate under… Or if that is the only things will get done around here - backroom meetings under the cloak of some political fast talk - then there’s no need to elect politicians that supposedly represent the will of the people…
If whatever the DPP is doing is not in the best interest of the voters they will get booted out in the next election. Berate them all you want, but the DPP is not the entire reason that dialogue with China is not happening… If you think that’s the case you are only fooling yourself… At least they are straightforward about their position.
Simplistic is probably a better adjective to describe the DPP “foreign” policy.
So what is the DPP’s straightforward position in light of the MYJ “peace accord” option? I haven’t heard any options from the DPP candidate pertaining to this issue at all.
MYJ been spouting his peace accord plan for almost a year now. Surely the DPP has a counter-option for public consumption by now.