On Aug. 11, China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Vice President Li Yafei (李亞飛) said the so-called “1992 consensus,” supposedly arrived at by ARATS and its Taiwanese counterpart the Straits Exchange Foundation (海基會), was “a consensus expressed in spoken form by each side that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait both adhere to the one China principle.”
Pro-unification media in Taiwan were thrilled by Li’s comment, believing it to be a clear expression by the Chinese side that it accepts that the “1992 consensus” means there is only one China, with each side having its own interpretation of what China is.
In fact, Li was only repeating the ARATS’ position as put forward in 1992, namely that the two sides “signaled their agreement to each express in spoken form their adherence to the one China principle.” The Chinese side maintains that the “1992 consensus” means “both sides expressed in spoken form the one China principle,” while rejecting the notion of “one China with each side having its own interpretation” and its attitude in this respect has not changed.
Li did no more than reiterate ARATS’ established position, yet the pro-unification media pretend that what he said signified recognition of “one China with each side having its own interpretation.” Either these commentators are ignorant of history or they are trying to deceive their readers and viewers.
While insisting that the two sides “accepted the one China principle in spoken form,” China does not accept the idea of “one China with each side having its own interpretation.”
China’s rationale for this attitude is that the government of Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who was Taiwan’s president in 1992, later interpreted “China” as meaning a historic China, while defining the status quo as a transitional one of two Chinas. Lee’s notion of two Chinas contradicts the Chinese side’s “one China” position, namely that “there is only one China in the world, Taiwan is a part of China and China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are undivided.” China’s reason for rejecting “one China with each side having its own interpretation” is that it could allow Taiwan to interpret “one China” in such a way as to empty it of its political content. That is why China insists on the “one China principle” and does not permit any other form of expression.
China does not worry about Taiwan’s adherence to the title “Republic of China” (ROC) because as far as Beijing is concerned the international consensus with regard to “one China” is that “there is only one China in the world and China is represented by the government in Beijing.” The claim that the ROC represents China is not accepted internationally. What Beijing is worried about is that Taiwan may not accept that it is part of China. Now Taiwan’s government accepts that Taiwan is part of China, although it claims that China is the ROC. Since almost the whole world recognizes the government in Beijing as representing China, if it is accepted that Taiwan is part of China, that means the government in Beijing also represents Taiwan. Thus, the argument about whether “one China” is the ROC or the People’s Republic of China is a bogus issue. As long as Taiwan accepts it is part of China, internationally it will be considered to have been legally annexed by Beijing.
Handling cross-strait relations demands a thorough understanding of history. Those who arbitrarily interpret the documents to suit their own requirements are fooling others and kidding themselves and in the end such behavior could have disastrous results. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and pro-unification media and academics would do well to think before they speak.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath