During a recent interview on the issue of the so-called “1992 consensus,” former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that he in 1992 personally oversaw cross-strait negotiations, and that in late October of that year, the Taiwanese and Chinese governments agreed to support and uphold the “one China” principle, although each side had different interpretations of what “one China” means.
He went on to say that on Nov. 3, 1992, the Taiwanese side submitted a letter to the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), inquiring whether verbal expressions of both sides’ interpretations of “one China” would solve the issue.
Ma said that Taipei on Nov. 16, 1992, received a response that said: “We respect and accept your suggestion.”
Therefore there was indeed a “consensus,” Ma said.
Was this really how it happened?
First, Ma at the time was vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) and would not have been in charge of the Hong Kong talks.
Second, China did not accept the Taiwanese side’s suggestion.
Three decades later, is Ma still attempting to rewrite history?
The 1992 Hong Kong talks, held from Oct. 8 to Nov. 1, were a working-level consultation to open negotiations between China and Taiwan. Right at the start, the Chinese side suggested that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should be defined as “one China” and that cross-strait affairs were consequently Chinese affairs.
This led to a stalemate between the two sides.
On the fourth day of the talks, the Chinese side abandoned the format, leaving Taiwan’s representatives behind.
On Nov. 3, China stated its position through a news release published by Xinhua news agency, saying: “The head of [ARATS] today announced that there has been significant progress in the working-level consultations on the issue of the documentation for the talks, after ARATS accepts [Taiwan’s] Straits Exchange Foundation’s [SEF] suggestion of establishing the ‘one China’ principle verbally, and is willing to discuss the substantive content separately.”
The SEF responded in another news release, saying: “According to a press release by the head of ARATS published through Xinhua today [Nov. 3], the Chinese communists are willing to ‘respect and accept’ [the SEF’s] recent suggestion to agree for the ‘one China’ principle to be expressed verbally, but the agency also said that the substantive content verbally expressed will be discussed separately.”
As the Chinese side had not responded by Nov. 15, the Hong Kong talks collapsed.
On that day, Ma called a news conference and his agency issued a news release titled “MAC regards the Hong Kong talks to have fallen at last hurdle.”
He also told reporters that “the 1992 Hong Kong talks have collapsed without reaching consensus.”
Today, Ma is saying that a “consensus” was reached, which is a slap in the face of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫), who during a US trip earlier this month said that the “1992 consensus” was “a consensus without a consensus.”
Ma has either developed amnesia, is being disingenuous or is sending a message to the Chinese Communist Party.
Former MAC chairman Su Chi (蘇起) has admitted to in 2000 inventing the term “1992 consensus.”
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), former MAC chairman Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝), former SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and former SEF deputy secretary-general Chen Rong-jye (陳榮傑) have all said that there was never a “consensus.”
Lee has even dismissed Ma’s attempts to claim that the “consensus” ever existed, saying: “Silly boy, if you want to rewrite history, it is not that simple.”
Thirty years later, Ma is no longer a boy, but he is just as silly.
Chou Ni-an, a former legislator, is head of the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s department of organization.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
A report by the US-based Jamestown Foundation on Tuesday last week warned that China is operating illegal oil drilling inside Taiwan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Taiwan-controlled Pratas Island (Dongsha, 東沙群島), marking a sharp escalation in Beijing’s “gray zone” tactics. The report said that, starting in July, state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp installed 12 permanent or semi-permanent oil rig structures and dozens of associated ships deep inside Taiwan’s EEZ about 48km from the restricted waters of Pratas Island in the northeast of the South China Sea, islands that are home to a Taiwanese garrison. The rigs not only typify
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS