Today on PTT, I came across an article titled “Why does Chu keep asking about the 1992 Consensus while Tsai doesn’t answer directly?” The original author, Kevin1103, has released the content for reposting. While the chronological timeline provided is helpful for understanding the history of the Republic of China (R.O.C.) and the PRC, the author’s pro-independence bias often skews the historical interpretation, requiring readers to think critically.
From an “independence seeker’s” perspective, the author fundamentally rejects any possibility of reconciliation. However, through the very timeline they provide, we can see that President Ma Ying-jeou’s definition of the 1992 Consensus was actually a significant opportunity for the R.O.C.
To see this, one must temporarily set aside independence ideology. Otherwise, it is impossible to rationally view the existence of Mainland China—a land that has evolved from the “world’s factory” to the “world’s market.” Can we truly afford to ignore it?
The Necessity of the “Minimum Baseline”
If the 1992 Consensus is discarded, the relationship between the two sides would mirror the tragic distance described by author Amy Cheung: “The furthest distance in the world is not between life and death… but standing right in front of you while you don’t know I love you.”
Without this consensus, the PRC simply will not engage with us. It isn’t a matter of whether we want to ignore them; they will be the ones ignoring us. Mainland China essentially “reluctantly” accepted the 1992 Consensus. By acknowledging it, both sides returned to the actual consensus reached in 1992 rather than the selfish assertions of later years.
Only by acknowledging this “minimum baseline” can normal Cross-Strait exchanges occur.
Rebuttal to the “Colonial” Narrative
The original author argues that the KMT is an “alien regime” and that the 1992 Consensus is a tool to deceive the people for “vested interests.” I disagree. Regardless of the outcome of Ma Ying-jeou’s policies, it is clear they were intended for the benefit of the people of the R.O.C. If there are “massive interests,” those interests belong to the citizens who benefit from stable trade and travel.
I believe the ultimate path to peaceful coexistence lies in a “Chinese Federation” (中華聯邦). As I have always maintained: Would you change the name your parents gave you with hope just because a stranger happens to have the same name?
Our task is to make our name—the Republic of China—shine so brightly that the other side cannot ignore us, rather than acting like a “Taiwanese mama’s boy” crying on the ground for sympathy.
Appendix: Excerpt from Kevin1103’s Original Post (PTT)
“Before answering this, one must understand the evolution of the KMT’s China policy. Under Chiang Kai-shek, it was ‘Han and Thieves cannot coexist.’ Under Chiang Ching-kuo, it was the ‘Three Nos’ (No contact, no negotiation, no compromise). Lee Teng-hui proposed the ‘Special State-to-State’ relationship. Now, Ma Ying-jeou uses the ‘1992 Consensus’—outwardly accepting ‘One China’ while internally using ‘One China, Different Interpretations’ to mislead the people…
To maintain the legitimacy of their rule over Taiwan after the R.O.C. lost its status in the UN, the KMT constantly emphasizes the Cairo Declaration. Once the R.O.C. lost its status as the representative of China, the KMT faced a crisis of legitimacy… The 1992 Consensus, packaged by Su Chi in 2000, was a way to smuggle in the CCP’s ‘One China’ principle… This ‘Great Recall’ or ‘Great Surrender’ approach ensures the comprador class profits while they keep Green Cards ready for a quick exit…”