Stay wary of Beijing's 'one China'

A Nov. 23 report from the Xinhua News Agency said China's Premier Qian Qichen (錢其琛), in his capacity as a member of the Politbureau, met with KMT Vice Chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) during the latter's visit to China. To my recollection, it was the first meeting of high-level KMT and Communist Party leaders since Zhou Enlai (周恩來) left Nanjing for Yenan after peace talks between the two parties broke down in mid-November, 1946. The Qian-Wu meeting was noteworthy, even though it lasted only 30 minutes.

It was Qian who took the first swipe during the meeting, saying, "We insist on the `one China' principle. We will never waver [on this point]. Our demands that the Taiwan authorities recognize the `one China' principle and give up their separatist stance will never change. Only when the Taiwan authorities accept the `one China' principle can cross-strait relations be stable." Then Qian went on to say, "If Taiwan goes for independence, that will be a historic disaster, an unsalvageable disaster."

This was a good shot that gave Wu an opportunity to respond. Wu urged Beijing to, "Consider the sentiment of your Taiwanese brethren and resolve disputes with wisdom and rationality. Current mainstream public opinion in Taiwan is for neither immediate independence nor immediate unification. It is for maintaining the status quo. [The Beijing authorities] should pay attention to this mainstream opinion when handling cross-strait relations."

Qian was unable to refute Wu's comment. He had no choice but to agree. Wu then gave him another shot, saying Taiwan's opposition alliance believes the two sides should return to the 1992 consensus and the former KMT government's Guidelines for National Unification (國統綱領). In other words, "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" (一個中國，各自表述).

Wu did not stop there. He also reminded Qian that he had acknowledged during his meeting with Taiwan negotiator, Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫), in 1998 that "differences over the meaning of `one China' are understandable."

This conversation made it very clear who was puffed up with pride and obstinately trying to impose his will on others, and who was trying to be reasonable and accommodating. Wu has countered Beijing's absolute "one China" principle with a relative and more reasonable "one China, with each side making its own interpretation."

What is even more worth noting are the reports in the Chinese media about the meeting. Wire reports from both Xinhua, which supplies news to all of China and the world, and China News (中新社), which supplies only to Chinese-language newspapers overseas, reported Qian's imperious discourse in full and verbatim, without a single word of Wu's calm, reasoned responses. The reports give an impression of Wu listening to Qian's imperial edict, quietly and with a lowered head.

In my experience, those news reports seem to indicate that, ideologically, President Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and other Politbureau standing committee members were still unable to accommodate "one China, with each side making its own interpretation," and that they did not know how to respond. Also, they did not want the Chinese people to know that mainstream public opinion in Taiwan, as conveyed by KMT Vice Chairman Wu, is to maintain the status quo and to seek peace and mutual economic benefit. That was why they opted for a news blackout, as China's communist regime has always done to keep their people in the dark.