Reuters reports that China has stopped talking to Taiwan via the "communication mechanism" because Tsai won't recognize the faux "1992 Consensus"....
But China has insisted she recognize something called the "1992 consensus" reached between China's Communists and Taiwan's then-ruling Nationalists, under which both agreed there is only one China, with each having their own interpretation of what that means.Note first that Reuters, knowing the 1992C is faux, shies away from concretely reporting on it. No time or place of agreement is mentioned, all is vagueness. Moreover, this presentation is wrong: China has never recognized the codocil "each having their own interpretation", which was invented and promoted by KMT politicians.
In a brief statement carried by the official Xinhua news agency, China's Taiwan Affairs Office said that since May 20, when Tsai took office, Taiwan has not affirmed this consensus.
"Because the Taiwan side has not acknowledged the 1992 consensus, this joint political basis for showing the one China principle, the cross Taiwan Strait contact and communication mechanism has already stopped," spokesman An Fengshan said.
If you think about it logically, it appears that Tsai could totally agree, with Taiwan's "own interpretation" being that Taiwan is not part of China. Once you realize how absurd that is, it is easy to see that what China wants to say is that Taiwan is part of China -- the 1992 Consensus is just an old whine in a new blargle.
As I've always said, the 1992C exists only to put the pro-Taiwan forces in a box.
China is really engaging in media management: making China look more fierce than it is (cue the ZOMG TAIWAN IS TENZ! articles). China knows that the media will report "tensions" which in turn will cause people in Washington to argue that Taiwan ought to be suppressed. But this is 2016, not 2006, and China is causing trouble all along its borders. The case that Taiwan is the problem is difficult to make in the face of China's omnibelligerent posture.
In fact Taiwan and China will continue to talk to each other across a range of actors and organizations. This is just another one of those non-punishment punishments, that cost China nothing -- like reducing group tourist quotas while ignoring the travel agencies shifting to individual tourist visas.
ADDED: Ben Goren of Letters from Taiwan pointed out on Twitter that this news is being released now because Tsai is transiting the US... typical petty Chinese hogwash...
UPDATED: The NY Times has an otherwise good piece on it that cites Cabestan and Sullivan, two serious experts on Taiwan, but apparently there is no Google in their office....
China has several methods by which it could further constrain Ms. Tsai. It could seek to lure away Taiwan’s few remaining diplomatic allies with promises of lucrative infrastructure investments. It could also place restrictions on Chinese tourism to the island, which has increased significantly in recent years, becoming a bright spot for the otherwise struggling Taiwanese economy.Tourists are a net loser for Taiwan, and exist only because China hopes to establish patronage links within the Taiwan economy, and to help the KMT further its patronage links in local areas. It seems that the alleged "positive effect" of Chinese tourism is now a Journalistic Fact and journalists will never discover that reality is the opposite.
Of course, the NYT reports the cut-off as "a sign of growing friction". Wrong. The friction is always there, and always the same. It just manifests itself variously. But sexy headlines about tension attract clicks and sell papers.
UPDATED: The international media is as predictable as the sunrise. Here is Reuters imaginatively writing: Tensions between China and Taiwan rise again over 'One China' policy.
UPDATED: A commenter observes:
Has Reuters slipped up and actually acknowledged the fact that only the KMT were in on this so-called deal, and that it has nothing to do with public opinion, there was no mandate from the people, and no space in which such a deal could have been discussed. This is the closest I've seen in the international media to a tacit admission that the talks were merely party to party.Almost looks that way. Though Reuters couldn't note that both were dictatorships and no democratic process intervened in this "Consensus" on either side.
REF: AIT Burghardt on the 1992 Consensus just today.
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!