A wonderful line from one of the China Post's recent editorials (inadvertently) illustrates the absurdity of Taiwan basing its China policy on a "consensus" supposedly formulated by two unelected bureaucrats sent by Taiwan & China to negotiate with one another back in 1992:
Although the Chinese communists and the nationalists cannot agree on what was actually agreed on in their 1992 talks . . .
While I do not spend much time contemplating the sound of one hand clapping, or pondering what the definition of the word 'is' is, something this inane simply must be immortalized. Not with mere words, but by taking quill to parchment, and committing lyric to verse.
Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper:
Can we agree an agreement
is still an agreement,
if those in agreement
cannot agree
upon what was agreed
in the agreement?
It would be par for the course to find metaphysicians and mystics answering in the affirmative. However, it is tantamount to professional malpractice when the president of a country -- someone supposedly well-schooled in contract law -- maintains such a proposition holds true.
Comments