During his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) yesterday, former Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) statements reflected the values of the so-called “1992 consensus.” While he referred to Xi Jinping by the title of general secretary of the Communist Party, rather than as president of China, he referred to people from Taiwan and China as “Chinese [中華民族],” in alignment with the formulation of “one China, respective interpretations.” And yet the minister who in the year 2000 coined the phrase “1992 Consensus” now says it means “nothing.”
Speaking minutes before Ma’s meeting with Xi, Su Chi (蘇起), former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) minister for Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, told foreign press in Taipei that it is “nothing” except a symbol of trust. His view is that Taiwan’s current President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) broke that trust in two ways.
First, with policy in education that emphasized a Taiwanese ethnic identity rather than a Chinese one — which he said was particularly egregious because ordinary Chinese people would be antagonized by it. Second, by stating directly that the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China should not be subordinate to each other (互不隸屬).
Su was asked whether this timeline added up, given that China unilaterally broke off dialogue with Taiwan just weeks after Tsai’s inauguration as president. The major alternative account is that China’s position has changed under President Xi Jinping, so that rejection of unification is now equated with Taiwanese independence.
In response, Su said there had been “underground” quasi-official communication after that point and the real cutoff came later. “I think President Tsai’s behavior, especially after 2018, after [U.S. President] Donald Trump’s trade war, little bit by little bit add[ed] up, so right now I think President Tsai is in China’s eyes not someone they trust at all.” He later added that if Taiwan had not crossed these “red lines” then China would not have been “in a hurry” to act.
Su said he was speaking from the perspective of pessimism about the future of cross-strait relations. He believes both that China “may strike” and that the U.S. would not come to Taiwan’s aid in the event of China taking military action against Taiwan.
Characterizing the current situation, he said China had three visions for unification. Cross-strait dialogue is one option. U.S.-China dialogue is another. “Non-peaceful” intervention is the third. He said under Taiwan’s current leadership, cross-strait dialogue is “gone,” so Xi Jinping’s “last ray of hope” is now dialogue with the U.S.
Asked for how what he thought could bring about a new dialogue between China and Taiwan, Su suggested that an inter-party consensus on cross-strait relations — between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — would first need to be arrived at. But he was pessimistic about this possibility because he said those closer to the center ground in the DPP had been sidelined by both President Tsai and president-elect Lai Ching te’s (賴清德) new cabinet selections.
Beyond this, Su was vague on what that consensus might involve and what the content of a dialogue with China might look like. He said the process of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait talking itself would “ameliorate” tensions, adding to his earlier comment that the 1992 consensus formulation was just “the tip of the iceberg,” where the iceberg was “trust.”
Su also spoke about domestic issues. He said the early 1990s was a “golden period” for Taiwan, consisting of an economic miracle, democratization, cross-strait rapprochement and “greater international space for achievements.” He said Taiwan’s 1997 constitutional revisions concentrated too much power in the hands of the president, with not enough checks and balances.
Su was speaking at an event hosted by the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Taipei, advertising his new book, 美中對抗下的台灣選擇 (Taiwan’s Choice Under U.S.-China Confrontation). The book is available in Chinese only.
Leave a Reply