Totally vindicated on the bogus 1992C. Thank you, Beijing!

A woman cleans "tree seeds" in Jhuolan.

Before I get to the meat of this post, in which I count coup on our lazy, Kuomintang-propaganda-regurgitating international media, I'd like to point out this fantastic post from back in 2009, which says that the English  word ketchup derives from a Southern Minnan word for "fish sauce". Apparently fish sauce was an ancient food of China. Those of you with an interest in Austronesian history will note (1) the overlap between the distribution of fish sauce and the presence of Austronesian peoples and (2) the fact that fish sauce disappears from south China when the Han move in and replace it with fermented soybean sauces. I expect that the Minnan word for fish sauce derives from some Austronesian ancestor, and that fish sauce was originally an Austronesian invention.

But on to the post, which has me LMAO. The expansionists in Beijing issued style guidelines for their press this week, among which was a command that the "one China, two interpretations" of the fictional 1992 Consensus is unacceptable usage, because Beijing does not accept "two interpretations"...

In a move intended to increase pressure on Taiwan, China’s official Xinhua news agency published a set of guidelines for Chinese media when referring to Taiwanese authorities, including a ban on using the Taiwanese version of the so-called “1992 consensus.”

The “1992 consensus” — a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000 — refers to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.

Yeah, that's right. For years the western media has been regurgitating this piece of KMT propaganda as if it were a fact. Few, if any, have ever stated the reality: that Beijing has never recognized the "two interpretations" codicil. This is known to everyone who has studied the issue, and there is reference to that fact on the net, including on this blog -- which I know international media workers read (I never toot my own horn, but I will break this rule just once).

Thank you, Beijing, for confirming what I have been saying for some time now.

What does this mean? It means -- again as all of us on the pro-Taiwan side have been chorusing for ages:

THERE IS NO 1992 CONSENSUS

The "consensus" as promoted by the KMT consists of two parts -- one of which is "two interpretations". Beijing has just nixed that. There is no and never was any 1992 Consensus.

When Beijing uses the term "1992 Consensus" it just wants Taiwan's leaders to say that Taiwan is part of China. It has never accepted "two interpretations". Beijing has conclusively demonstrated that the 1992C is just a cage to imprison a non-KMT president. As I wrote two years ago:

The KMT and CCP do not need an idea they can agree on to talk, they can talk any time they like and do. It's not like Chu and Xi sit down and an aged cleric walks out with a copy of the Lun Yu and then Xi and Chu both take an oath on it to adhere to the 1992 Consensus before they talk. Neither gives a flying f@ck in a rolling donut about the 1992 Consensus. Like all legal ideas put forth by Leninist authority organizations like the KMT or CCP, the rules cage others; they don't apply to the Party itself. It's always important to keep in mind when thinking about the KMT that it is not a political party but the political organization of a colonial ruling class. Hence, the key point from the KMT-CCP view is that it is a cage that both Chinese parties can use to imprison the DPP's policy makers, since each insist the DPP must adhere to it if it wants to talk to China.

That was true in 2015. It is true today. But you know what sucks? Two things will happen:

1. Some yammerheads in the int'l media will continue to write as if Beijing has never confirmed there is no 1992C and will continue to use the "two interpretations" nonsense.

2. Not a single international media organization will issue a public correction/apology for misleading their readers the next time the 1992C comes up.

The best we can hope for is the reference to the 1992C disappears in the international media. It will be amusing to see how they wriggle and squirm on that one.

Why O why can't we have a better media?
_______________________
[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!