Taiwan and China did not reach a consensus during their 1992 meeting in Hong Kong. Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) confirmed that there was no consensus at all. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) also said, "If we must say there was a consensus after the 1992 meeting, then the most realistic consensus was `there was no consensus.'" Wasn't Lee's statement clear enough? Who can be more authoritative than Lee on the matter?
In his Double Ten National Day speech, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) suggested that the two sides "use the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong" for future negotiations. The "1992 meeting" is a correct term, compared with the so-called "1992 consensus." However, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) has distorted Chen's words, arguing there was a consensus reached. As Lien said, the spirit of the 1992 meeting lay in the consensus of "one China," with each side making its own interpretation. He therefore questioned whether Chen -- who refused to acknowledge the "1992 consensus" in the past -- has decided to accept Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems" by mentioning the 1992 meeting again. Chen's mention of the 1992 meeting was just a statement of fact.
The consensus of "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" will certainly lead to "one country, two systems." On the contrary, the 1992 meeting was simply a meeting without any conclusion. Naturally, a consensus does not exist.
The point is, why does Lien have to define the 1992 meeting as a consensus? Obviously, his purpose is to promote the idea of a consensus. This is tantamount to accepting Beijing's "one China" principle. In light of the remarks made by China's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清), we can understand why Lien and the blue camp are holding up the idea of a "1992 consensus" -- the KMT and Bei-jing are becoming friends in light of their pro-unification stance.
Zhang's words were very clear: "In 1992, China's Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait [ARATS] and the SEF reached the consensus verbally that the two sides adhere to the `one China' principle. This fact cannot be denied."
"If Taiwan's leaders ac-knowledge the `1992 consensus,' then cross-strait dialogue and talks could be resumed immediately. This stand has never changed," Zhang said.
His words are exactly the same as those of Lien. The only difference is that Beijing is ser-ious about its "one China" (meaning the People's Republic of China, PRC) principle, while Lien and the blue camp are perhaps not so serious about their "one China" (meaning the Republic of China, ROC) principle.
Specifically, Lien is using the ROC -- which has ceased to exist -- to smuggle the PRC into Taiwan. Otherwise, why would Beijing possibly agree with the idea of "one China, with each side making its own interpretation?"
According to China's latest white paper entitled, The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue, published in 2000, "In 1949, the PRC's government was proclaimed, replacing the ROC's government to become the only legal government of the whole of China and its sole legal representative in the international arena, thereby bringing the historical status of the ROC to an end." As a result, acknowledging "one China" is acknowledging Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems." How can there be any variation in this interpretation?
Thus, there was no consensus reached during the 1992 meeting, nor was there a consensus on "one China, with each side making its own interpretation."
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS