Print

Mail

wiki links

Definitions differ on `two sides, one China'

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 (蘇起), has said that in this formulation, "one China" has precedence over "each side with its own interpretation," and Shao Chung-hai (邵宗海), a professor at National Chengchi University, dismissed the formulation as nothing new.

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 (連戰) and Soong's acceptance of "one China," saying that "Taiwan is part of China" and that "Tai-wan is not a sovereign nation."

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
This story has been viewed 2308 times.