At the 1992 meeting between representatives of Taiwan and China in Hong Kong, China suggested starting the meeting with a discussion on how to interpret “one China.” The Chinese side first raised its own five points of interpretation and asked Taiwan to respond, treating it as a condition for negotiations. The Taiwanese side voiced its disagreement and proposed its own eight points of interpretation. Since Beijing did not agree to these either, the two sides came to a deadlock.
Soon after, China tried another ruse, requesting in a letter that Taiwan to hold a press conference and accept by spoken agreement the idea of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,” thus giving the false impression that a consensus had been reached. In the letter, China even specified what Taiwan’s stance should be, attempting through the exchange of correspondence to influence the statement. Taiwan made no response at all, refusing to recognize a mutual consensus in either oral or written form, and so the dialogue petered out with no conclusion.
Taiwan’s refusal to accept the principle of “one China, with different interpretations” was widely reported and criticized in the Chinese media.
Nevertheless, the following year (1993) the two sides held a high-level meeting between Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and Wang Daohan (汪道涵), then chairmen of Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) respectively.
After he was elected earlier this year, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that he had accepted the so-called “1992 consensus” because Beijing would not negotiate if Taipei did not accept it. The facts, however, do not bear this out. The truth of the matter is the 1993 Koo-Wang meeting was arranged and scheduled by the secret envoys of the leaders of the two sides in June 1992 and it went ahead regardless of the results of the 1992 cross-strait meeting in Hong Kong.
In April 2000, eight years after the Hong Kong meeting and coinciding with the transfer of political power in Taiwan from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), then Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) invented the term “1992 consensus,” supposedly spurred by his worry about developments across the Taiwan Strait, to create at least a vague concept that could serve as a basis for future negotiations. Actually, the purpose was to trap the new DPP government within the framework of a “1992 one China consensus.”
With the DPP at the helm, Beijing adopted the same strategy, claiming for itself the right of interpretation and demanding that the so-called “1992 consensus” be the basis for cross-strait talks. Unfortunately, the inexperienced DPP government was not alert to the “1992 one China consensus” trap, allowing Beijing to repeatedly quote the “consensus” in its propaganda. With the cooperation of the KMT in Taiwan, the Chinese side hoped to form a false impression both at home and abroad of a one China consensus reached at the Hong Kong meeting.
ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) is set to visit Taiwan for cross-strait talks next month. The Ma administration will inevitably take the “1992 consensus” as the basis for the upcoming SEF-ARATS talks. We need to remind Ma and his government that if they continue to overemphasize the idea of “one China,” the result may be that a false impression of “one People’s Republic of China” takes shape in the international community. This would eliminate the existence of the Republic of China. If this happens, Ma will have to bear full historical responsibility.
Huang Kun-huei is chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS