My Take | In light of today’s political realities, Beijing needs to rethink what ‘one China’ really means
The ‘1992 consensus’ on Taiwan and the ‘two systems’ engineered for Hong Kong appear to have passed their use-by dates
As the pro-China Hung Hsiu-chu was elected the first woman leader of the Kuomintang, Beijing sent a congratulatory message stressing the one-China principle.
Beijing can take consolation in that their woman in Taiwan might have lost – or rather ditched as a candidate at the last minute – in the January presidential election; she is now at least the leader of the “correct” political party.
In her reply, she obliged by stressing the so-called 1992 consensus on which the one-China principle is based.
As a piece of diplomacy, the 1992 consensus is most useful by arriving at a general principle on which both sides can claim agreement. But it papers over crucial specifics over what exactly that principle means, thereby avoiding potential conflicts.
In that sense, the consensus may be seen as a political analogue for such ideas as “one country, two systems” and “high degree of autonomy” in the Basic Law in Hong Kong. Beijing and Hong Kong people may all agree on these general principles, but their specific meanings are highly contested.
China and its loyalists still stick to these formulas whenever conflicts arise. But as diplomatic or political tools, they are showing serious wear and tear in light of new political realities in Hong Kong and Taiwan.