The communique released on the meeting between China's President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) speaks of a "two sides, one China" consensus for future talks. But there has been considerable discussion as to how this formula should be interpreted. There is the positive interpretation, which believes that Beijing's position has shifted, and the conservative interpretation, which believes that Beijing's position is essentially unchanged.
Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀), director of the PFP's policy research center said that the use of the term "two sides" indicates that Beijing accepts the fact of the two sides of the Strait being separate, and that the "one China" refers to "each side having its own interpretation."
Hong Kong's pro-China Wen Wei Po said the communique confirms the interpretation of the so-called "1992 consensus" as being "two sides, one China," and that this is "in line with both history and the current situation." The Washington Post said the communique accepts "each side having its own interpretation," and that this, manifestly, is a concession by Beijing.
However, the Asian Wall Street Journal said that while Beijing has acknowledged that there are different interpretations of "one China," this is not actually a major concession. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi (
The Presidential Office has inclined toward the conservative position, believing that accepting the formulation would be to accept the "one China" principle.
How should we assess these divergent views?
According to reports by the Xinhua News Agency, there are two aspects to the interpretation of the formula in the communique. The first is that it is necessary to respect the so called "1992 consensus," and second that on the premise that both sides uphold the "one China" principle, as stated in the "1992 consensus," cross-strait dialogue on an equal footing can be resumed. Some media have interpreted the first aspect as a concession by Beijing, because it suggests that it has accepted "once China, with each side having its own interpretation."
But if this is a concession that benefits Taiwan, why was the so-called "1992 consensus" never put into writing? If that "consensus" is seen as being the same as "two sides, one China," and interpreted as both sides upholding the "one China" principle, this is just a sleight-of-hand to make the "consensus" equivalent to the "one China" principle. In fact, "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" may well have been China's goal at the 1992 Hong Kong talks, allowing it to sow dissent in Taiwan, while engaging in a diplomatic struggle against Taiwan on the international stage.
The "Anti-Secession" Law states that: "There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division."
In blocking Taiwan's application to join the World Health Organization, Beijing made use of KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (
In this case, can we accept "two sides, one China" or "one China, with each side having its own interpretation?" Only after China clearly accepts the existence of the Republic of China.
Huang Yu-lin is an associate professor at National Chiao Tung University and a former chief secretary of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs