 |
'1992 Consensus': Ironclad Evidence
Recently, a debate was carried out among members of Taiwan political circles on whether or not the "92 consensus" had been reached between the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) on the "one China principle" in 1992, admitting or denying the "92 consensus" has become an important indication for observing whether or not the authorities have the sincerity to improve cross-Strait relations and restore cross-Strait consultations.
Taiwan Authorities: Denying "Consensus", Shelving One China PrincipleThe principal responsible member of the Taiwan "Mainland Affairs Council", secretary-general of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), vice-chairman and concurrently secretary-general of SEF recently made speeches on various occasions in the Island, claiming that there was no "92 consensus" in that year, and there was only "92 spirit".
The so-called "92 spirit" was raised by the new leader of the Taiwan authorities at the July 31 press conference. Earlier, he alleged that there was no consensus on the question of one China reached between the ARATS and SEF in 1992, and if there was a "consensus", then it was "a consensus without consensus". Later, he further distorted the consensus reached between the two institutions into so-called "92 spirit of exchange, dialog and laying aside disputes".
In fact, the intention of the new leader of the Taiwan authorities is crystal clear, and that is attempting to replace the "92 consensus" with the "92 spirit", and using the "laying aside disputes" to evade the important contents of the "92 consensus", i.e., accepting the one China principle.
The new leader of the Taiwan authorities, on the one hand, claimed that for the two sides of the Taiwan Straits to negotiate, one "should not preset a prerequisite", on the other hand, he declared that "reunification is not the only choice" and asserted that he himself "is a foreigner with Chinese origin and not a Chinese", and so on and so forth.
Anyone with a discerning eye can see that the new leader of the Taiwan authorities tried his utmost to negate the fact that both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one China, and Taiwan is part of China; and intended to deny that cross-Strait negotiation is the internal affair of one China. What he wanted to deny is precisely the consensus reached in the discussion between the two institutions through consultation on an equal footing.
In answering questions at the Taiwan "Legislative Yuan", the main responsible member of the Taiwan "Mainland Affairs Council" asserted that "whether there is a 1992 consensus or not is a matter of interpretation", he stressed that the "92 spirit" put forward by the new leader of the Taiwan authorities is same as the "special state-to-state relations", "both are hoping to find an equal basis in the process of the interaction between the two sides of the Straits". This is precisely a confession of their real intention in denying the "92 consensus".
Sophistry cannot change the fact. From the letters and telegraphs exchanged between the two institutions in the year, from things revealed by persons concerned and the media news reports, people will come to the conclusion that there do exist the "92 consensus".
Files of the Two Institutions: There Is Only One Truth.Between October 28-30, 1992, in their discussion in Hong Kong, the two institutions conducted discussion on how to express the question concerning adherence to the one China principle in the cross-Strait business (the usage of notarial certificate) talks. The basic attitude of the ARATS is: the concrete matters in the exchange between the two sides of the Straits are the internal affairs of China, these matters should be solved through consultation on the basis of the one China principle. In business discussion, as long as a basic attitude toward adhering to the one China principle is clearly indicated, the political meaning of "one China" might not be discussed, the method of presentation could be fully discussed.
During consultation in Hong Kong, the ARATS proposed that five languages be used for expression, SEF, on the conclusion of the "national unification council" also suggested the use of five languages for expression.
Although the Taiwan side also agreed that the usage of a notarial certificate by the two banks of the Straits is the internal affair of China, that both sides should adhere to the one China principle and expressed its desire to seek national reunification. Regarding the formula of literal expression, however, it was hard to reach a consensus.
When the talks were about to end, SEF representatives put forward three additional methods of expressions and presented their final content of expressions: "They also suggested that "In the process of seeking national reunification through the joint efforts of the two banks of the Straits, although both sides adhered to the one China principle, with regard to the meaning of one China, however, both sides had different understandings.
But in view of the increasingly frequent exchange between the people of the two sides, in order to guarantee the rights and interests of the people of the two sides, the matter regarding the verification of documents should be properly settled." They also suggested that "the one China principle be expressed respectively by words of the mouth". ARATS representatives indicated that this was the main achievement gained in the consultation, and that an official answer would be given after SEF's suggestions and its report on the content of concrete expression were received.
Shortly after the conclusion of Hong Kong discussions, on November 16, 1993, the ARATS formally sent a letter to SEF, indicating that "in the working discussion this time, SEF representatives suggest that on the premise of mutual understanding, the one China principle be expressed by the method of respective verbal statements made by the two institutions, and concretely express the content in which it is clearly stated that both sides of the Strait adhere to the one China principle".
The letter added that "Our Association fully respect and accept your Foundation's proposal". "Here our Association wants to tell your Foundation in this letter the main points expressed by words of mouth: Both banks of the Straits adhere to the one China principle, and strive to seek national reunification. But in the cross-Strait business discussion, the political meaning of "one China" is not involved. In this spirit, the use of cross-Strait notarial certificate (or other business discussions) should be properly solved". The ARATS' letter was attached with the final formula of expression provided by the SEF.
On December 3, SEF sent a letter of reply to ARATS, which raised no objection to the consensus reached. Thus far, the discussion on the question regarding the expression of the one China principle came to an end with the conclusion of two paragraphs of concretely expressed contents mutually acceptable to both sides.
Cross-Strait Discussions: Adhering to Principle, Seeking Common Grounds While Reserving Differences, Consultation on an Equal FootingFrom the process and content of the above-mentioned discussions and exchange of letters and telegraphs, one can clearly see: There did exist a consensus between both sides in 1992, particularly "the attitude of "adhering to the one China principle and striving for national reunification" is clearly indicated. But the two sides did have divergence, that is, the "meaning of one China". Regarding this, SEF said, "each side holds different understandings". ARATS said, "In the cross-Strait business discussion, the political meaning of 'one China' is not involved".
Although there existed difference between the two sides over the political meaning of one China, it did not hinder the attitude of both sides toward adhering to the one China principle and pursuing national reunification. It was precisely on this basis that the two sides properly handled the affairs affecting the rights and interests of the general public, and carried out business talks between the two institutions and successfully held the Wang (Daohan) and Koo (Chen-fu) talks in Singapore in 1993, a series of agreements on cross-Strait exchange and cooperation were signed, even political dialogs between the two sides had already been placed on the agenda.
On March 18 this year after the Democratic Progressive Party and its representative came to office, the question about where will the cross-Strait relations go has all along been the major concerns at home and abroad.
The Chinese Government and people have indicated their adherence to the basic principles of "peaceful reunification, and one country, two systems", and have required that the Taiwan authorities clearly promise not to advocate the "two-states theory", they have clearly promised that they would stick to the consensus on that "both sides of the Straits adhere to the one China principle" reached between the two institutions in 1992 and respectively expressed by words of mouth, this consensus will be taken as the basis for contacts and dialogs between the two sides, they have thus once again given the leader of the Taiwan authorities an opportunity to improve cross-Strait relations, and most of the general public, and the political and media circles in Taiwan greatly value this opportunity.
Discussion Can Be Resumed Only when "92 Consensus" Is AdmittedThe public opinion on the Island has pointed out that whether or not to admit the "92 consensus" actually involves two-layer questions: one is the question of sincerity, if the consensus reached before was denied at will, how could mutual trust of the two sides be established? Second is whether or not Taiwan authorities have the desire to resume cross-Strait consultation, if there is simply no intention to resume cross-Strait discussion, then naturally they could talk to themselves without regard for the consequences!
Whoever denies the "92 consensus" can have only one aim, that is, obstructing the resumption of cross-Strait talks. This, in essence, is to continue to advocate the "two-states theory", attempting to concoct a prerequisite to support the claim that "reunification is not the only choice". So, there are such hypotheses as "one China is not the only way for resumption of talks", "Resumption of talks is not the only method for maintaining cross-Strait stability" in a vain attempt to split the motherland.
It is thus clear that those who obstinately cling to their "Taiwan independence" stand naturally will not care about whether or not cross-Strait relations should be improved, and consequently they confound black and white and deny facts. However, the majority of the Taiwan people will not allow the "Taiwan independence" elements to be bent on going their own way.
The consensus reached between the two institutions has gone down in history, it can't be altered by the hypothesis of a handful of people in Taiwan. If the leader of the Taiwan authorities really has sincerity to improve cross-Strait relations, he should genuinely accept the one China principle, openly and unequivocally admit the consensus about "both sides adhere to the one China principle".
The article, written by Shi Zheng, is relayed from People's Daily, Overseas Edition, page 6, December 7, 2000
In This Section
|