Wed, Feb 22, 2006 page3

• Su Chi admits the `1992 consensus' was made up

  • By Shih Hsiu-chuan / STAFF REPORTER
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi (蘇起) yesterday admitted that he made up the term "1992 consensus" in 2000, before the KMT handed over power to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

  Su said he invented the term in order to break the cross-strait deadlock and alleviate tension.

  "[Then president] Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) was not in the know when the term was invented. Lee found out about it later from the newspaper, but he never mentioned later that it was improper," said Su, who was chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council at the time.

  Su made the remarks yesterday in response to Lee who, during a Taiwan Solidarity Union seminar on Monday, said that the so-called "1992 consensus" was a fiction.

  "Little monkey boy's trying to make up history," Lee said of Su, daring him to respond on the matter.

  When asked by reporters for a response yesterday, Su said he did invent the term, which was meant to encourage observers to think that "each side has its own interpretation on the meaning of `one China.'"

  The term "1992 consensus" is controversial. The KMT has insisted on the existence of a "consensus" between Taiwan and China during a meeting in Hong Kong in November 1992 that both sides should adhere to the "one China" principle.

  Since the term appeared, however, the DPP government has insisted that no such consensus existed.

  Stating that "no consensus" was reached on the definition of "one China" during the 1992 meeting, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has said that the "1992 meeting" would be a more appropriate term to describe the conference in Hong Kong.

  Su said he made up the term "1992 consensus" as a replacement for the expression "each side with its own interpretation" in order to benefit cross-strait development.

  "The wording `each side with its own interpretation' of the `one China' principle" had been used from 1992 to 2000. But China didn't like the `each side with its own interpretation' part and the DPP government didn't like the part that said `one China,'" Su said.

  "On account of these differences and the fact they could have led to more cross-strait tension after the DPP took power, I suggested the new term as a common point that was acceptable to both sides so that Taiwan and China could keep up cross-strait exchanges," he said.

  Su said he initially thought the term could contribute to a resumption of cross-strait negotiations and did not think that it would be unacceptable to the DPP government.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Seven NT$10 million receipt prizes unclaimed

  • 2

    Taipei tells Denmark to fix ‘China’ tag

  • 3

    Taiwan aiming to be major UAV player

  • 4

    Taiwanese officials shown 1st F-16V jet due this year

  • 5

    Ministry to retaliate in naming spat with S. Korea