Obama Admin tells DPP to P*ss-Off

Su Chi, Ma’s former National Security Advisor, invented the 1992 Consensus around 2000 as he admitted long ago. The wikipedia article has a fairly good discussion of this tortured issue.

The biggest problem with the 1992 Consensus is not that it is an anachronistic fiction, but rather that it is completely meaningless. A consensus means that we agree about something. By stretching the concept to its limits, we might be able to say that an agreement to disagree is a kind of consensus. But we don’t even have that. The 1992 consensus was a proposal by the KMT government of the time to agree to disagree about whether One China refers to the PRC or the ROC. The PRC never agreed to disagree on this point. It has always insisted that One China is the PRC. Therefore, even the fictional consensus (never actually reached) does not and has never existed. The Ma administration tries to bracket all this and pretend that there is a consensus. China pretends that Taiwan is part of the PRC.

The DPP’s position is far simpler and based on reality.

[quote=“Feiren”]
The DPP’s position is far simpler and based on reality.[/quote]

The truth usually is, however since China have already rejected their position on a basis to negotiate, the net result is no diplomatic negotiation between China and Taiwan will take place while the DPP are in power. The KMT on the other hand have this manufactured consensus where all China hear is that the KMT agree there is one China and basically keep their position that they are that one China.

My opinion the smartest move for the DPP is to agree there is one China, and their interpretation is its like Europe. Then if China object, ask why is it ok for the KMT to have their interpretation that China doesn’t agree with, and still talk with them so long as they say “one china” yet the DPP can’t have its interpretation and still say “One China”

Second best would just be honest and admit with DPP and China diametrically opposed, its unlikely there will be diplomatic exchanges on things like treaties, but wont kick out KMT polices like ECFA or antagonize China, work for peace, and so on.

However the option they chose, where China need to face reality and looks like she wants to review ECFA, which will be hard to do if Chinas not talking, so whats the plan then? Scrap it?. Tsai was neck and neck with Ma at one point in the polls, she now seems to be trailing and I agree with Mucha man, doesnt look hopeful for this election. I think her position on how to deal with China if the polls are to believed is in no small part the reason swing voters are becoming skeptical of her ability to maintain stability.

I think this might be the article cfimages is referring to: taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003512154 It’s written by Chen Rong-jye, who was secretary general of the Straits Exchange Foundation at the time of the 1992 talks. He rejects the view that there was something similar to a 1992 consensus agreed during the meetings.

Among other things, he says that "On Nov. 16, 1992, China sent a letter to the SEF stating that “the functional consultations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait do in no way whatsoever involve the political implications of ‘one China.’” In other words, China explicitly stated that the talks had no bearing on the interpretation of “one China”, thus clearly rejecting the idea that there was a 1992 consensus like the one Ma is now talking about. Back in 1992, there was no 1992 consensus.

That would require a full meeting of the party, and no such meeting ahead of the 2012 election would do that for fear of pissing off the core vote.

Self-defeating and achieves nothing.

If it was hurting Taiwan way more than Taiwan benefited, why not? If it’s a relatively minor issue, Taiwan can live with it temporarily. But China stands to lose from four or more years of no engagement with Taiwan.

The election is not for another four months. That’s a very long way to go. And I don’t agree that swing-voters see Tsai as dangerous or not good for stability. She’s the antithesis of a “mix-it-up” candidate.

That would require a full meeting of the party, and no such meeting ahead of the 2012 election would do that for fear of pissing off the core vote.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote=“Cueball”]

Self-defeating and achieves nothing.[/quote]

On the surface I would agree. But, in light of the fact this thread is about an article which an unnamed official is saying there are doubts that the DPP fully understand the mistrust of China towards them. Being clear on the realities of the situation would make it easier for others to follow the DPP strategy.

When you say China must face the reality of the situation, people start scratching their heads and think “I see a flaw in your cunning plan, hmmm”

[quote=“Cueball”]

If it was hurting Taiwan way more than Taiwan benefited, why not? If it’s a relatively minor issue, Taiwan can live with it temporarily. But China stands to lose from four or more years of no engagement with Taiwan.[/quote]

You’re asking why not scrap ECFA if it is hurting Taiwan way more than Taiwan benefits?

[quote=“Cueball”]

The election is not for another four months. That’s a very long way to go. And I don’t agree that swing-voters see Tsai as dangerous or not good for stability. She’s the antithesis of a “mix-it-up” candidate.[/quote]

I agree its just speculation. The polls look to be showing a slide in votes for Tsai, do you think they are accurate and if so, why do you think that is happening?

As its being reported by AP:

[quote]Taiwan opposition chief open to China unification
September 18, 2011|Associated Press

Taiwan’s main opposition presidential candidate has said she is open to the island’s unification with China, providing the issue wins popular support.

Even with the condition, Tsai Ing-wen’s comments represents a radical departure for her traditionally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party.

Unlike the ruling Nationalist Party of President Ma Ying-jeou, which has pushed for closer relations between the island and the mainland for more than ten years, the DPP has emphasized the importance of maintaining Taiwan’s de facto independence and its identity as a sovereign state.

But Tsai appeared to veer away from that stance during remarks made at a press briefing in New York on Friday. Her remarks were reported in Taiwanese newspapers Sunday and confirmed by a party spokesman.

“I’ve said I do not exclude any possibility,’’ Tsai was quoted as saying when asked whether she is open to unification with China. “As long as there is public support, Taiwan and China’s future relations can remain open (to any possibility).’’

Tsai’s condition appears to be a difficult one to fulfill, at least for now. Taiwanese public opinion polls consistently show that only a small minority of the island’s 23 million people support unification with China.

Tsai was speaking in the immediate wake of controversial remarks attributed to an unnamed senior American official cited by the Financial Times newspaper. The newspaper reported the official as criticizing Tsai’s China policy as jeopardizing stability in the region.

Since taking office in May 2008, Ma, Tsai’s opponent in the January presidential elections, has decreased tensions across the 100-mile (160-kilometer)-wide Taiwan Strait to their lowest level since the two sides split amid civil war in 1949.

Despite the improvement of relations, China has not renounced possible use of force to press its claim that Taiwan is part of its territory and needs to be returned to its fold.

Amid criticism that the anonymous U.S. official’s reported comments constituted American interference in democratic Taiwan’s electoral process, a State Department spokesman emphasized that the U.S. remains neutral in the Taiwanese presidential poll.[/quote]

Interesting take on her visit.

The whole thing about the “92 consensus” is that they agree to disagree. They only agree that there is “Only one China”… all the rest is just bla bla by the KMT in order to make it palatable for the Taiwanese. No official in China ever agree with the “each side has their own interpretation”.

How many Taiwanese agree that “there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of it”? How can it be called a consensus, when it is only an agreement between 2 parties without any real “consensus” with the people affected. It should be renamed as the “92 CCP/KMT Agreement”, and never a consensus, because there wasn’t and there isn’t a general agreement by the Taiwanese about the wording on it. If they want to call it a Consensus, they need to make it through a democratic process. And let us not forget that in 1992, Taiwan was not even a democracy, so any major policy from Taiwan back then lacks the fundamental support from the public.

Taiwan is currently celebrating its 100th birthday mr boogie. Don’t you think there are folks who wonder how a country occupied by Japanese 100 years ago and then for a further 3 or 4 decades is having its centennial birthday?

We all know the answer, but has the DPP proposed changing the date and time to a more standard reference? It would seem a sensible thing to do.

Due to the fact that the Legislative Yuan works on a 10-year plan (that means that any law takes 10 years to be discussed) it is probably in the backlog…

Seriously? With technology and the internet the way it is, if we needed to wait 10 years for any law to be enacted, perhaps the DPP should also focus on political reform.

I think you’ve been long enough in town to understand that something like that had to be passed by a legislature that is anti-change. Just look for how long any sunshine law, or any politically significant law took/is taking to be passed. Unless it is ECFA, laws are done quite slow over here…

So, back to the question.

Does it behove the DPP to claim to be able to maintain stable relations with China, while at the same time dismissing the notion of talks based on one China, and stressing that it is China that needs to face reality?

Yeah, totally shocking. I mean how can the US put its OWN interest in front of those of other countries. You can’t be caring more about YOURSELF than you do about other countries, man.

What other country will come to Taiwan’s aid or speak for Taiwan or bind itself by law to protect Taiwan?

Yeah, totally shocking. I mean how can the US put its OWN interest in front of those of other countries. You can’t be caring more about YOURSELF than you do about other countries, man.[/quote]

I agree 100%, but that’s not the point I am trying to make.

If you are going to ally yourself with another country, you got to stick it out. That’s my opinion, otherwise the words mean nothing.

The USA would never go to war with China over Taiwan. They can put 20 aircraft carriers in the TW strait and all would get sunk quickly. If the US has a chance they would have to use tactical nuclear weapons. There will be no such escalation over Taiwan.

When the act was passed the US was the major military power by far. China’s military in those days was about as backwards as they get. Not so anymore.

Besides this, China and the USA are joined at the hip economically.

What other country will come to Taiwan’s aid or speak for Taiwan or bind itself by law to protect Taiwan?[/quote]

No other country including the USA. Do you think that if China invaded Taiwan the US would do anything except rattle the saber?

Risking a major war over Taiwan? The Chinese aren’t afraid of losing 500 000 or 1 000 000 men.

The binding by law issue is also mute. A law can be changed as easily as it was created.

[quote=“Mick”]Taiwan is currently celebrating its 100th birthday mr boogie. Don’t you think there are folks who wonder how a country occupied by Japanese 100 years ago and then for a further 3 or 4 decades is having its centennial birthday?

We all know the answer, but has the DPP proposed changing the date and time to a more standard reference? It would seem a sensible thing to do.[/quote]

Well, the 100th birthday of the ROC. The ROC was once the mainland.

[quote=“bigduke6”][quote=“Mick”]Taiwan is currently celebrating its 100th birthday mr boogie. Don’t you think there are folks who wonder how a country occupied by Japanese 100 years ago and then for a further 3 or 4 decades is having its centennial birthday?

We all know the answer, but has the DPP proposed changing the date and time to a more standard reference? It would seem a sensible thing to do.[/quote]

Well, the 100th birthday of the ROC. The ROC was once the mainland.[/quote]

Yes, of course. The point was made to mr boogie who was talking about the KMT making decisions for everyone in Taiwan, when not everyone holds the same beliefs.

I pointed out, that originally, ROC was the KMT, although that’s not the case today, the KMT still acts like this is the case, the 100 year anniversary is a good reminder of its past, how politics used to be on the island and how it seems President Ma like to do politics.

This is actually false. The US is not bound by law to protect Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act is not a mutual defense treaty, there’s nothing that says the US has to come to Taiwan’s aid in an event of war with China.

Settle down guys, the US hasn’t sunk that far yet. If China attacks Taiwan, do you really think the US is going to just sit back and watch?