PandaLien fails to get Hu to clarify this "1992 Consensus"

It appears PandaMa did not convince PandaLien Chan to get an answer from Hu Jintao on a crucial question that lies at the heart of the KMT’s plan to start cross-straights negotiations and create peace and prosperity for all.

What kind of “consensus” is actually in the so-called 1992 Consensus – assuming that it exists at all?

[Panda]Lien-Hu meeting avoids defining '92 consensus

[quote]During the one-hour meeting, however, neither political figure clarified what the “1992 consensus” really meant besides stressing its significance. In addition, [Panda]Lien, at a post-meeting press conference, said it’s a concept both understood by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party.

Instead of giving a direct answer to whether Taiwan and China have differences in their understanding of the concept, [Panda]Lien asked a rhetorical question in reply, “You’re not asking this question on behalf of Chen Shui-bian, are you?”
[/quote]

So, again – like all KMT rhetoric – it would seem that this is all window dressing for the consumption of anyone ignorant or too stupid to realize that there really is no evidence of a “consensus” at all.

Obviously, that begs the question:

Why are the KMT and CCP so buddy-buddy if the 1992 “consensus” is, in fact, not what the KMT publicly states that it is?

according to wikipedia its because Lien Chan agreed to China’s version of the 1992 consensus, you can check who made that entry and ask that person. Since all China/Taiwan issues are hotly debated and contested, you can find out why it was left there.

But it makes me wonder what would’ve happened if Lien Chan became President. Would he just visit China and submit so willingly?

Does Lien have the authority to make these types of clarification now that he is no long the KMT chairperson.

Clarity? Like the sort of clarity about the existence of the NUC?

Absolute clarity is needed when you’re dealing with your account and your lawyer. It’s not appropriate when you’re dealing with sensitive politics, whether that means you’re dealing with an opposition political party… or your wife.

Chen Shui-bian is a lawyer, and Beijing doesn’t need to play games of “clarity” with a lawyer. Everyone on both sides of the strait know what course of action the pan-Blues/Reds are advocating. Responding to Chen Shui-bian explicitly just encourages him to play out these battles in the media. Let CSB fight the spit-wars, while everyone else moves on with the issues that actually matter. Namely, more policies and mechanisms that will lead to closer economic and social integration.

[quote=“cctang”]Clarity? Like the sort of clarity about the existence of the NUC?

Absolute clarity is needed when you’re dealing with your account and your lawyer. It’s not appropriate when you’re dealing with sensitive politics, whether that means you’re dealing with an opposition political party… or your wife.

Chen Shui-bian is a lawyer, and Beijing doesn’t need to play games of “clarity” with a lawyer. Everyone on both sides of the strait know what course of action the pan-Blues/Reds are advocating. Responding to Chen Shui-bian explicitly just encourages him to play out these battles in the media. Let CSB fight the spit-wars, while everyone else moves on with the issues that actually matter. Namely, more policies and mechanisms that will lead to closer economic and social integration.[/quote]
ROFL! Are you saying that Beijing should not deal with lawyers or lawmakers? :bravo: :laughing:

Question: Do you know the prior profession of most politicians and world leaders?

And yes, everyone knows that the Pan Blues, although they’ll never admit it openly, just want to be fooled by the Pan Reds again and lose everything, yet again. The Pan Reds just want another excuse to continue on with their imperialism under the mask of National Pride.

But what’s the difference under the pan-Greens? Isn’t the Greens version of National Pride just called Taiwanese pride.

Perhaps that’s what is wrong with pan-Green leadership right now. Instead of behaving like public servants they act more like opposition lawyers. Not that lawyers don’t have their place in society. But the leadership on Taiwan is suppose to represent and defend all of ROC, not just their own minority interest in the name of Taiwanese Nationalism.

I don’t have any problems with lawyers, per se. I said Beijing doesn’t need to play a rhetorical game on a lawyer’s terms. It serves zero purpose. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained with engaging Chen Shui-bian at this level.

Chen Shui-bian and his ideology grows more irrelevant with every passing day. Beijing should be spending time on the issues that matter.

Well, Hu agreeded with the fact that both Taiwan and the mainland belong to one China, although no one is telling exactly what China this is - are we talking about PRC or ROC or Chinese Union? So the “1992 consensus” basically is half a sentence, as no one clarifies exactly what is one simple word. Congratulations on Lien and Hu for keeping the bs on the air. Anyway, I admire the KMT as the only opposition party in the world who can act as a rulling government - so they say.

You know, mr_boogie, I guess the KMT are saying that “agreeing to disagree” is a momentous occasion, from which great thing can happen.

Except, of course, noone is really asking how “agreeing to disagree” can really create any sort of “consensual momentum” at all. Indeed, “agreeing to disagree” is not really a meaningful consensus at all. That is the crux of the issue. It is also the reason China will not clarify what it’s position really is with respect to this “1992 consensus”. Or, more accurately, it is the reason why the KMT won’t push them on this to clarify. For it is the KMT who is paying lip-service to their belief that “one-China” belongs to the R.O.C.

Perhaps boths sides understand the environment is not right to have too much clarity about “One China” yet. However, “agreeing to disagree” is a much better position than discussing when to begin the military invasion.

I think most KMT supporter believe in the ROC, it is the extreme TI that have questionable loyalty to the State of ROC.

I think Mr. Boogie is on the mark. To the PRC and KMT, the so-called consensus simply means “one China” (一中). If they can agree on that much, then they can differentiate themselves from Chen and the greens, and that differentiation is all they really care about. Once you concede that there is only one “China” (though we all know it to be a mythical entity), you have conceded everything.

By the way, welcome back, Stop_Ma.

[quote=“Atrabilious”]I think Mr. Boogie is on the mark. To the PRC and KMT, the so-called consensus simply means “one China” (一中). If they can agree on that much, then they can differentiate themselves from Chen and the greens, and that differentiation is all they really care about. Once you concede that there is only one “China” (though we all know it to be a mythical entity), you have conceded everything.

By the way, welcome back, Stop_Ma.[/quote]

Thanks, Atrabilious. Good to be back.

As far as “differentiating” themselves from the greens on this issue – I think Chen has pretty much foiled that plan.

Chen will, afterall, agree to talks if China will clarify it’s position on the so-called “1992 consensus”. If China publicly acknowledges what the KMT want people to believe, then this aspect of the “differentiation” is, for all intents and purposes, nill.

The KMT is snookered on this.

Of Course that China will never agree with a position where they ackowledge that the China might also be the ROC. For them, Taiwan and the Mainland is part of the People’s Republic of China, although they do not want to push the carpet beneath the feet of the KMT by saying that. Can anyone imagine Hu acknowledging that there might even be a ROC?

Yes, I can easily imagine Hu admitting the existence of a “Republic of China”… if one of the following conditions held true:

  • all 1.3 billion Chinese are considered pseudo-citizens of this Republic of China;
  • or, Chen Shui-bian wasn’t at the helm.

Otherwise, admission of the existence of this entity will just be used as reasoning for an independent China.

And even more important than the question of why Beijing does not concede the existence of yizhong gebiao, is the question of why Beijing should concede its existence? Is there really any interest in dialogue with Chen Shui-bian’s government? Does anyone really legitimately think that CSB is looking for clarification on this key issue, after which he’ll ease policies limiting cross-strait contacts?

This is the administration that blocked the arrival of two panda bears for political reasons (oh, I mean, out of an altruistic love of wild life). Chen Shui-bian is ideologically opposed to improving relations in a direction that Beijing will find acceptable, and there is literally nothing to be gained from engaging this man. Let him isolate and radicalize himself even further.

The Chinese phrase which has been used repeatedly this past week is: qiutong cunyi (求同存异). It means seeking out what’s shared, while reserving differences. And yes, one key element that’s shared between the Blues and Reds is their acceptance of a single, united Chinese nation. Whether this is called the PRC and the ROC, or some yet to be determined name is one of the points of differences that no one sees a need to resolve in the now and present.

On the other hand, what shared point of interest exists between the Red and the Greens? Can you name a single one? I can’t.

[quote=“cctang”]Yes, I can easily imagine Hu admitting the existence of a “Republic of China”… if one of the following conditions held true:

  • all 1.3 billion Chinese are considered pseudo-citizens of this Republic of China;[/quote]

“Pseudo-citizens”? :laughing:

ROTFL!

How about with the next DPP leader as president? Uhh…not likely. Unless, of course, there are 1.3 billion “pseudo-citizens”. LOL!

Why doesn’t China call his bluff if they believe that to be the case. Answer: There is no negotiating when it comes to a unified “PRC” China.

My goodness, cctang! They are only a couple of Pandas. Who’s the one being radical here?

I’ll give you another “key element” that’s shared with the Blues and Reds – total contempt for democracy.

No. Thank God.

What’s the point of calling Chen Shui-bian’s bluff? This isn’t 8th grade school yard politics. There’s nothing to be gained from empty machoism. Some of us have managed to move beyond sticks/stones, and prefer to act in a rational manner to achieve our specific goals. There’s nothing to be gained from engaging Chen Shui-bian, because as you yourself said, there’s absolutely no point of commonality between the two sides.

There will only be compromise and peace between the two sides when commonality exists. In other words, either the Communist Party has to be replaced by some other so-far non-existent political authority which sees eye-to-eye with Taipei, or Chen Shui-bian has to be replaced by someone else which sees eye-to-eye with Beijing. Obviously, we all know which one I want to occur, and which one you want to occur. Equally obviously, we can’t directly affect any change, except to sit here flapping our gums at each other… but fortunately, the winds do seem to be blowing in my favor.

And as far as citizenship in the ROC goes… well, at one point in time my parents were at least ROC citizens, since they were born before 1949. I wasn’t, but I believe under the ROC constitution, I should still be considered as such. Could you explain to me on exactly which day, and due to exactly which act, my parents and I were deprived of our citizenship?

What’s irrational about calling his bluff? If what you say is true, then this should marginalize him even more – more than a couple of Panda’s would, anyhow (talk about grade school yard politics :laughing: ).

The first scenario would likely see the removal of 800 missiles pointed at Taiwan and the second scenario would see more freedoms, rights and control taken from Taiwan. Why would any Taiwanese citizen in their right mind (apart from those elite few) want the second commonality if given a choice?

Who cares.

It sounds like you’re confident indeed that the DPP will win handily in 2008, and Ma will be defeated in humiliating fashion. We’ll see whether your optimism pays off in a few years.

As far as calling CSB’s bluff… why? What could that possibly achieve? Chen Shui-bian is the master of spin, and he won’t be backed into a corner on the issue because of a single utterance made during the conference with Ma. Any policy he implements will meet his goals/motivations… and as you already said, there is absolutely no point of commonality between his administration and the current government in Beijing. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained from working “with” Chen Shui-bian, period.

It sounds like you’re confident indeed that the DPP will win handily in 2008, and Ma will be defeated in humiliating fashion. We’ll see whether your optimism pays off in a few years.

As far as calling CSB’s bluff… why? What could that possibly achieve? Chen Shui-bian is the master of spin, and he won’t be backed into a corner on the issue because of a single utterance made during the conference with Ma. Any policy he implements will meet his goals/motivations… and as you already said, there is absolutely no point of commonality between his administration and the current government in Beijing. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained from working “with” Chen Shui-bian, period.[/quote]

Did I say “work with Chen”? No. I said call his bluff. Why? I told you why. It will marginalize the DPP and significantly improve the prospects of the KMT regaining power.

Ahh, but they won’t. Why? Because China will not agree to this imaginary “1992 consensus” that the KMT have dreamt up for public consumption.

If China truly has accepted the KMT interpretation of this “1992 consensus”, then what have they got to lose by calling Chen’s bluff?

I’m pretty confident that if PandaMa is the candidate he will be eaten alive – barring any stupid scandals by the DPP. If he does win – it will be by default, in other words.

Calling his bluff would do nothing to further “marginalize the DPP”… (I’m not sure that’s even possible!)

I give Chen Shui-bian more credit than you do, apparently. I’m very confident that he’d be able to survive this particular “admission” by Beijing without nary a scar… while also arming himself with more rhetorical ammunition for later battles.

But anyways, stop being so sour all the time about the Blues. Where’s your sympathy? These guys are going down in humiliating defeat in 2 years… just sit back and enjoy the show!