One thing the local English media have done to muddle up in the “1992 Consensus ” is to adhere to the literal translation of the Chinese term Su Chi, a chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, created to describe an agreement on the “one China with different interpretations” principle. They are now using “1992 Consensus” with abandon.
Well, “consensus” is a misnomer, in the first place. It takes more than three parties to a dispute to allow a consensus, but there are only two sides, the Taipei-based Straits Exchange Foundation and its Chinese counterpart, the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait. The four Arabic numerals “1992” make no sense to the unenlightened unless they are given an enlightening explanation.
So back to the Consensus of 1992. It's a tacit agreement between Taipei and Beijing (the good old Peking referred to by the imperial British before the Opium War and thereafter until Mao Zedong and company made the change to present spelling) that there is but one China, whose connotation each side can separately and orally make. There's no written agreement duly signed. The “agreement” was reached in 1992 through an exchange of letters between the two quasi-official organizations charged with the conduct of “non-official” relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. It was once disavowed by Beijing. That's why the Democratic Progressive Party has never accepted it as a sine qua non for dialogue between Taipei and Beijing.
Former President Chen Shui-bian called the “1992 Consensus” a plot to surrender Taiwan to the People's Republic of China. Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of the Democratic Progressive Party who is currently running for president, denies that there has ever been any “1992 Consensus.” But the fact is that it works. As a matter of fact, it worked to get the chairmen of the two quasi-official organizations to meet to sign a dozen agreements to usher in a brief detente across the strait while President Lee Teng-hui was in office. It has worked since President Ma Ying-jeou replaced Chen Shui-bian in 2008. U.S. President George W. Bush expressed hope with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao in a telephone conversation right after Ma's election in March three years ago that Taipei and Beijing should start dialogue across the strait “on the basis of the 'Consensus of 1992.'”
The mistake Tsai shouldn't have made in her presidential campaign is to reject the “1992 Consensus” altogether. Of course, she thought she had to do so to rally her hardcore independence activist supporters, but it shuts the window of opportunity of her election, which is a little ajar since James Soong, chairman of the People First Party, is eroding Ma's power base of the ruling Kuomintang by hyping his yet-to-be announced presidential bid.
Tsai's rejection of the “1992 Consensus” means she couldn't continue the cross-strait detente that benefits Taiwan much more than China, if she were elected on Jan. 14 next year. That scares away swing voters who might vote for her, making it next to impossible to beat Ma, who is having trouble with Soong's election spoiler move. These voters are the ones she should win in order to successfully challenge the incumbent president.
As a politician, Tsai still is a novice. She doesn't want to make deceiving campaign promises to win the election. If, for instance, she had promised to accept the “1992 Consensus,” which she could easily reject again when elected, she could have won the support of all those sway voters and more. Had she vowed to sign a peace accord with China, which Ma had promised to do in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election and has backpedaled from after the election, and to start dialogue on “unification,” she could even hope to win next January. These promises wouldn't erode her core power base, the native-born Hoklo who hates the idea of any mainlander ruling Taiwan. They would support her anyway despite all the promises she might make to their horror.
Ma must be heaving a deep sigh of relief, now that his rival has made her worst election blunder.
〈本文僅供參考，不代表本會立場〉
（本文刊載於100.8.17 The China Post 4版 ）
王順民
(
11月22日 15:13
)
劉新圓
(
2007年10月4日 15:04
)
