What’s in a name? by Hoonting

What’s in a name?   by Hoonting

 

What’s in a name?  That which we call a consensus
By any other name would sound as exclusive

 

The Ma administration has robustly promoted so-called "Consensus of 1992" since taking office in 2008, regarding it as a foundation of the cross-Strait negotiations.  Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) blasts President Ma Ying-jeou (MYJ) for forging history facts in exchange of political interests.  But, at the same time, DPP must try to figure out: Why the US supports MYJ's obvious fabrication?  Could it be possible that DPP and MYJ are arguing over different things that share the same term?

At the Hong Kong Talks in 1992, Taipei suggested that the both sides should try to define the term "China."  Yet, by turning back home immediately, the Beijing delegation rejected the discussion.  The then Premier Hau Pei-tsun and the then Deputy Minister of Mainland Affairs Council MYJ later acknowledged in an interview that the 1992 Talks failed, meaning that no consensus had been reached.  Yet, in April 2000, the term "Consensus of 1992" came into being.  Later, Su Chi, the Secretary of the National Security Council in Ma administration of 2008, admitted inventing the term.  Based on the above facts, DPP maintained that no consensus was ever concluded in 1992.  The "Consensus in 1992" never exists. 

The Consensus remained a puzzle, until recently. 
Gao Kong-lian, the vice Chairperson of the Straits Exchange Foundation revealed in the 2012 Presidential campaign that Chinese President Hu Jin-tau made a phone call to the US President George W. Bush in 2008 and notified Bush of "the 1992 consensus, which sees both sides recognize there is only one China, but agree to differ on its definition."^[1]  Gao said the details can be found in an English webpage of Xin-hua net, China’s news agency.  He emphasized that the US "knew" the consensus and China "recognized" it, implying that "Consensus of 1992" was born of the fact that "the US knew it and China recognized it" in 2008.  In other words, MYJ’s Consensus has nothing to do with the bilateral talks in 1992.  Instead, it was created from a trilateral non-paper among Washington, Beijing and Kuomintang (KMT) in 2008.  No wonder, being a complete outside from the phony consensus, DPP fails to understand why the US supports MYJ in the 2012 Presidential campaign.

A month after the election, a DPP senior politician Frank Hsieh asked the Green politicians to re-consider the possibility of admitting the "Consensus in 1992."  However, recognizing the consensus or not, DPP is and will always be excluded from it, because the native party was absent from the negotiation of 2008 -- in fact, absent from any official or unofficial, bilateral or trilateral decision and negotiation among the US, China, and KMT.

It can't be denied that Taiwan resides by a mega state and is forced to develop a constructive relationship to promise its survival.  In the inevitable engagement with China, DPP has to put aside its fact-based interpretation of the term "Consensus in 1992" and focus on "substantial interaction."  Among the useful suggestions for choice are "nations of the brothers" put forward by Koo Kuan-min, a leader of Taiwanese social activists, or "the Dominion" based on the Commonwealth by Raymond F. Burghardt, chairperson of AIT.

DPP should evade the terminological trap of "Consensus in 1992" or "Consensus of 1992," which is just the means of doing the multi-dimensional engagements between KMT and CCP after the half-century-old cold war confrontation.  The cross-strait tension, which was introduced to Taiwan by KMT when it took refuge in 1949, should not be an irrevocable ideology of Taiwanese society.  DPP has to take sensible actions to get rid of the role of a trouble-maker which, either historically or factually, it doesn't deserve.    re-written at 1945

 

Related articles

92共識 vs. 九二共識
What’s in a name?