A False Consensus
The “1992 Consensus” is anything but a consensus
“History is a people’s memory, and without a memory, man is demoted to the lower animals.” ―Malcolm X
What is a political consensus? It is a generally held opinion or idea that everyone in a specific group agrees with and fully accepts. The details of a consensus are usually consistent with what the parties involved agreed upon, and there is seldom much dispute about the legitimacy of the process by which that specific consensus was created.
In the case of Taiwanese politics, the so-called “1992 Consensus” does not fit the criteria of a consensus. It is not a consensus between Taiwan and China. In reality it is merely a political agreement between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). One in which the two parties heavily rely on to ensure that the 23.5 million people of Taiwan surrender their sovereignty and democratic way of life.
What is the so-called 1992 Consensus, and why does the consensus have legitimacy issues among the Taiwanese public? The 1992 Consensus is supposedly a tacit agreement that was reached by representatives of the KMT and the CCP at a meeting in Hong Kong in 1992. However, no consensus was reached at this meeting, as news reports from the time and later KMT presentations make clear.
Su-Chi, the director of Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council under then President Lee Teng-Hui claimed in 2006 that he completely invented the term “1992 Consensus” before the KMT handed over the Presidential Palace to the incoming Chen Shui-Bian administration in 2000. Su has said the term “1992 Consensus” is nothing more than a political term and symbolic rather than a substantive ideology.
Each of the parties has its own view of the “consensus”, a clear sign that in reality, there is no consensus. The KMT defines the 1992 Consensus as “One China, with respective interpretations,” referring to the Republic of China on Taiwan. Thus, for the KMT the 1992 Consensus says that there is only “one China” and each side has the discretion to interpret what that means.
The CCP insists the consensus means both sides adhere to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) version of the “One China” principle. The CCP has never accepted the KMT’s “One China with different interpretations”. Recognizing the ROC’s existence would mean completely deviating from the CCP’s “One China principle” position by accepting a “Two China” theory, an unlikely scenario from the CCP perspective. Indeed, in 2016 the Chinese government issued directives to the media specifically banning mention of the “two interpretations”.
The pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has never recognized the existence of the consensus, because, as the DPP points out, no agreement was ever reached in 1992, meaning that no consensus exists. It should also be pointed out that neither state was a democracy in 1992, and the representatives who met in Singapore were unelected appointees of authoritarian parties. Former President Lee Teng-hui, who was president at the time, has emphatically denied that any consensus was reached. The Taipei Times reported:
[Former President] Lee denied that a consensus was reached in 1992 between Taiwan and China, saying Ma’s claim that the “1992 consensus” was the most significant consensus made across the Taiwan Strait was “simply talking nonsense.”
“There is no such consensus,” Lee said, adding that he had asked then-Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) legal bureau head Shi Hwei-yow (許惠祐), then-SEF deputy secretary-general Chen Rong-jye (陳榮傑) and then-SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) — who were the delegates to the cross-strait meeting in 1992 — about the meeting and was told there had been no such consensus.
What is the purpose of this false consensus? The KMT itself states:
In April 2000, then MAC Chairman Su Chi was concerned that the incoming DPP administration might not accept “one China” in the cross-Strait consensus, so he suggested using the “1992 Consensus” to describe the exchange of letters by fax in 1992.
Thus, the real function of the 1992 Consensus is not to enable the ROC and PRC to relate to each other, but to cage any party in the future that might seek to reframe the PRC-Taiwan relationship. It is part of the program of Chinese nationalists of all political stripes to annex Taiwan to China.
In January of 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping in his “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan”, defined the 1992 Consensus as “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China and work together to advance national unification,” and implementation of the “one country, two systems” in Taiwan. Xi’s definition utterly refutes the KMT’s claim of “different interpretations” by specifically disallowing any ambiguity about the consensus and aligning it firmly with CCP ideology. Xi’s speech led President Tsai Ing-wen to reaffirm that the Taiwanese government and people will never accept the consensus defined by the CCP as the “One China, Two Systems” formula, something 75.4 percent of Taiwanese strictly oppose, according to a recent poll from the Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council.
There’s also confusion among the Taiwanese public about the 1992 Consensus. According to a survey that was sponsored by the Global Taiwan Institute, one-third of the Taiwanese population believes the consensus implies both sides of the Taiwan Strait are separate countries. According to the English-language Taiwan news, after newly elected Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-Yu and Taichung Mayor Lu- Lu Shiow-yen, both from the KMT, affirmed their support for the 1992 Consensus, searches about the consensus from both Kaohsiung and Taichung voters on Google skyrocketed.
The CCP has unilaterally caused tension in the Taiwan Strait by using the 92 Consensus as a political weapon to pressure the Tsai administration into accepting the One China Principle. The CCP has used its political and economic clout to deny Taiwanese delegations from entering UN-affiliated organizations, plundering ROC diplomatic allies and conduct military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. The CCP has attempted to split the Taiwanese public by circumventing Taiwan’s Central Government to establish communication channels with pan-blue counties and municipalities who recognize the consensus, and providing favorable economic exchanges, such as allowing Chinese tourists to visit cities favorable to Beijing’s agenda.
The ruling elite in Beijing need to wake up from their own ultra-nationalist dreams of expansion portrayed as “national rejuvenation”. If Beijing had the political wisdom, it would respect the will of the Taiwanese public by resuming semi-official communications with the Tsai administration and negotiating a new consensus, which would bring peace across the Taiwan Strait. A new consensus should be formed to reflect equality, mutual respect, reality and approval from the Taiwanese public.
Please consider becoming a Friend of ACT with a donation of your choosing.
