Taiwan Authorities and Their Leader's Nature Revealed by Their Attack on '92 Consensus'

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Monday, January 07, 2002

Taiwan Authorities and Their Leader's Nature Revealed by Their Attack on '92 Consensus'

The Cross-Strait Relations magazine recently published a signed article exposing the political nature of the Taiwan authorities and their leader attacking and slandering the ��92 Consensus".

The article says, since he took office, the leader of the Taiwan authorities has all along been denying the consensus, reached between the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) in 1992, that "both sides of the Taiwan Straits uphold the one-China principle" expressed by words of mouth. Over the past month and more, under his leadership, the Taiwan authorities as well as the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces again whipped up an adverse current of denying and attacking the "92 Consensus". Changing his previous bashful attitude and ignoring the minimum facts, he truculently declared that "there is simply no cross-Strait 92 Consensus", "it's impossible for me to accept" the one-China principle and the "92 Consensus"; he created various rumors and spread numerous lies. That was the most concentrated and most frantic attack launched by the leader of the Taiwan authorities since he came to power against the one-China principle and the "92 Consensus", thus further exposing his political nature of clinging to his splittist stand of asserting that "Taiwan is a sovereign independent state" and deliberately creating conflict and trying by every possible means to reject negotiation.

The article indicates that the means used by the leader of the Taiwan authorities as well as by some persons in denying the "92 Consensus" are not brilliant at all, they are no more than the replay of shopworn tunes, they quibble that the "document in black and white can't be found", it is "the CPC self-created and forced definition", and is "a term created by the party not in power". But it is quite clear they have committed the following two clumsy mistakes.

Firstly, they think that so long as they turn a blind eye to it, the "92 Consensus" could "evaporate" under the watchful eyes of the people. As the term suggests the "92 Consensus" xpressed respectively by words of the mouth on adhering to the one-China principle was a paragraph expressed respectively by words of the mouth by the authorized ARATS and SEF on the premise of mutual approval. What the ARATS said was that "both sides of the Straits adhere to the one-China principle, strive to seek national reunification. But in cross-Strait affair discussion, it does not involve the political connotation of one China." What the SEF said was that "in the process of both sides of the Straits are making joint efforts to seek national reunification, both side adhere to the one-China principle, but with regard to the connotation of one China, each has their different cognition." However, the process of expressing respectively the content by words of mouth and reaching the consensus was recorded in black and white in the SEF's November 3 ,1992 news release, and in the ARATS' November 16 letter and the SEF's December 3 letter. Furthermore, the "Summary of the Wang Daohan-Koo Chen-fu Talks" published by the SEF on August 12, 1993 clearly stated: "After the one-China principle was agreed upon by both sides and was expressed by words of mouth respectively by the two organizations, the SEF began actively considering the talks." What is mentioned above can be checked against file, and brooks no denial. Since the leader of the Taiwan authorities denied the "92 Consensus", the persons involved in the handling of matters concerning the discussions between the two organizations in the year concerned have come to prove the existence of the "92 Consensus", explicitly explained the process of reaching the Consensus just at the time when the leader of the Taiwan authorities and personages concerned once again denied the "92 Consensus", Mr. Koo Chen-fu, chairman of the SEF, expressed through media on November 7 his attitude of "reservation" about the saying and reminded the Taiwan authorities that they should pay attention to the "significance of the 92 Consensus". The denial of the "92 Consensus" by the Taiwan authorities and their leader is doomed to collapse of itself.

Secondly, the leader of the Taiwan authorities is too infatuated with his ability of playing with words and has the illusion of trying to deny the "92 Consensus" through the absurd logic of "a white horse is not a horse". After the ARATS and the SEF reached consensus in 1992 on upholding the one-China principle, although the wording used by both sides of the Straits in calling this Consensus is not completely the same, the content of the object referred to by both sides is indeed the same. Before Lee Teng-hui dished out the "two-states" remark, when Taiwan authorities stuck to the use of their own terms, they did not deny the promise made by the SEF that "both sides of the Straits adhere to the one-China principle", and "striving to seek national reunification". The attempt of the Taiwan authorities and their leader to deny the "92 Consensus" on the ground that both sides used different wording is untenable.

If there is any new idea in the denial and attack launched by the leader of the Taiwan authorities against the "92 Consensus", that is he makes use of the worries and misgivings existing among some Taiwan people about reunification and "one country, two systems", he fabricated the political lies about so-called acceptance of the one-China principle and the "92 Consensus" would be tantamount to accepting "one country, two systems" and "the Republic of China" would be eliminated, he tries to use this lie to justify his splittist stand and mislead the general public of Taiwan. It is well known that in the "92 Consensus", on the premise that both sides jointly expressed that "both sides of the Straits adhere to the one-China principle", the ARATS, with regard to the SEF's opinion that "both sides have different cognition" about the political connotation of one China, handled the matter on the principle of seeking common grounds and reserving differences by "not discussing it for the time being". The meaning of "not discussing it for the time being" is preserving the ARATS' right to clearly express its stand in future discussions and at the same time demonstrating its great magnanimity. The two organizations had engaged in talks for eight years on the basis of the "92 Consensus", and Taiwan had not been therefore "eliminated". The Chinese mainland advocates "peaceful reunification, and one country, two systems", at the same time, it also understands Taiwan's reality and is aware that peaceful reunification takes a process of gradual realization. Upholding the one-China principle means, first of all, on the premise of guaranteeing China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, providing fundamental guarantee for peace, stability, improvement and development of cross-Strait relations. At present, requiring Taiwan authorities to acknowledge the "92 Consensus" is aimed, first of all, at resuming dialogs and discussions between the two organizations. Political differences between the two sides, including differences over the political connotation of one China can be resolved only under the one-China principle and through negotiations between both sides. This writer calls the attention of Taiwan compatriots to this fact: Compatriots of both sides of the Strait have a common stand on the one-China principle, even if there is temporary divergent views on the political connotation of one China, the matter can be resolved by way of seeking common grounds and laying aside differences. However, from Lee Teng-hui to the leader of the Taiwan authorities of today, they invariably deny the common view and expand differences in order to achieve their aim of betraying the one-China principle. While uttering the above alarmist talks, the leader of the Taiwan authorities over-estimated his ability of wagging his tongue and under-estimated Taiwan compatriots' ability of judgment.

The article points out that the question of whether or not acknowledging the "92 Consensus" is, in the final analysis, a major matter of right and wrong concerning whether or not admitting that "both sides of the Straits adhere to the one-China principle" and "making joint efforts to seek national reunification" and whether or not the Taiwan leader is willing to abandon his "Taiwan independence" separatist stand. It is utterly miscalculated that if he thinks he can unilaterally change the existing base of cross-Strait relations on the pretext of the rotation of political parties; if he thinks that talks can be resumed on other occasions even if he denies the "92 Consensus"; if he cherishes the illusion that "state-to-state" negotiation can be realized even if he insists on his claim that "Taiwan is a sovereign independent state". The main aim of Taiwan authorities and their leader in negating the "92 Consensus" is to sell their splittist advocacy that "Taiwan is not part of China" and "Taiwan is a sovereign independent state", this reflects their fear that their "Taiwan independence" separatist advocacy will be "wiped out" after they accept the "92 Consensus".

The article says in conclusion that at present, Taiwan compatriots strongly demand improving and developing cross-Strait relations and better the economy in a stable environment. Over the past year and more, the mainland policy of the Taiwan authorities and their leader and their practice of obstructing resumption of talks between the ARATS and the SEF through denying the "92 Consensus" have seriously harmed the interests of Taiwan compatriots. In the face of the Chinese mainland's prosperity and development and the strong popular will of the compatriots between the two sides of the Straits. the Taiwan authorities, whether they want to resume talks or not, cannot obstruct the flesh-and-blood ties and the ever-closer contacts between compatriots of the two sides, nor can they check the rolling torrent of cross-Strait economic cooperation and direct 'three links' of mail, trade and transport. Unless they get rid of the specter of the "two-states theory" and "Taiwan independence", no political party and political figures of Taiwan can have a bright future.

By People's Daily Online

President Jiang on Taiwan Issue and International Situation

Cross-Strait Relations: One-China Principle Is the Focus

>> Full Coverage