 |
Taiwan Authorities Should Make Real Efforts for Reopening Dialogs
The magazine, Cross-Strait Relations, run by the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), published a signed article entitled "What Is the Sincerity for Reopening Dialog?" in its July issue.
The article points out that the Taiwan authorities should really show their sincerity and goodwill, and make real efforts for reopening dialogs between the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF).
The article says that recently, in the face of the demand of compatriots across the Taiwan Straits for improving cross-Strait ties and reopening dialogs between ARATS and SEF, some personages of the Taiwan authorities repeatedly made deliberate gestures, calling for talks between leaders across the Straits by following the example of the summit meeting between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK), declaring that they welcomed ARATS' president Wang Daohan to visit Taiwan in October this year, assuming a posture of showing "sincerity" and "good will" in relaxing cross-Strait relationship.
At the same time, the Taiwan authorities do not wish to make their due efforts to respond to the two-point proposal put forward by the mainland of the motherland that Taiwan authorities clearly promise not to play with the "two-states theory" and clearly promise to adhere to the common view reached between the ARATS and the SEF of Taiwan in 1992 that the two sides of the Straits adhere to the one-China principle as expressed in an oral form by both sides respectively. They ignored historical facts, they first flatly denied and then wantonly distorted the common view reached between ARATS and SEF in 1992; some one even repeatedly played the same old tune, saying that " 'the special state-to-state relationship' was the status quo", and that " the 'two-states theory' is "well-intentioned" and the "necessary preparations for cross-Strait dialogs". Since the Taiwan authorities have two-faces behavior, people cannot help asking: Do they really have the "sincerity" and "good intention" to welcome president Wang to visit Taiwan for reopening dialogs between ARATS and SEF?
The article points out that reopening dialogs between the two sides is an important indication of cross-Strait ties moving toward relaxation and an important way to improve and develop cross-Strait ties.
In 1992, the ARATS and the SEF reached during their consultation the common view on the "two sides of the Straits adhering to the one-China principle" as expressed by both sides respectively in an oral form. Respecting and safeguarding the said common view is the bounden duty for the new Taiwan authorities. To begin dialogs with this as the starting-point is a reasonable proposal and arrangement. The mainland of the motherland has repeatedly expressed in explicit terms that so long as the Taiwan authorities take a clear-cut and positive attitude toward stopping the "two-states theory" and promise to stick to the said common view, the mainland is willing to authorize the ARATS to contact and conduct dialogs with the organization and personages empowered by the Taiwan side, this fact fully shows the mainland's sincerity in its willingness to improve cross-Strait ties and reopen dialog and negotiation.
If the Taiwan authorities adopt an attitude of respect for history and for realities and actively respond to the two-point proposal of the mainland, then, reopening cross-Strait dialogs should be a matter that can be realized without much effort.
The article says, it is regrettable that the new leaders of the Taiwan authorities said in a disguised manner that "the agreement, common view or conclusion reached between the two sides through dialogs, contacts and consultations are all established bases", on the other hand, however, they self-contradictorily said that the formulation about a so-called common view shared by both sides on one China means "each says its own words". Recently, they further indicated that "if there is a common view, then that means "a common view without common view", they thus clearly negated the common view reached between the ARATS and the SEF. Under such a basic attitude, the consultative representative who personally submitted the content of the SEF about one China to the ARATS in that year today also declared that "the common view between ARATS and SEF is no common view"; even those new figures of the "Taiwan mainland committee" who know nothing about the process of consultation in 1992 also spoke at random that the common view reached by the ARATS and the SEF in 1992 was "something created". This attitude of the Taiwan authorities which deliberately attempt to undermine the established foundation for dialog between the ARATS and the SEF makes it difficult for people to see Taiwan authorities' sincerity for reopening dialogs.
The article says that on June 27, the new leaders of the Taiwan authorities indicated their "willingness to accept the common view between the ARATS and the SEF", but they distorted this common view as "each has their respective formulations on one China". However, they denied this only after one day. The article points out that "each side gives their respective formulation on one China" is Lee Teng-hui's distortion of the common view between the ARATS and the SEF. If they really recognize the common view of the two sides, they should at least take the attitude of following the expression given by the SEF in the year concerned and indicate that "both sides of the Straits all adhere to the one-China principle" and "make common efforts to seek national reunification", it should be pointed out here that the common view of the ARATS and the SEF does not involve, still less aims to solve difference in the political content of one China, but members of the Taiwan authorities, with a view to confusing public opinion, deliberately made a disguised replacement of concept on this issue, their aim is to seek an excuse for their denial of the common view, this is not worth refuting.
The article says that people have also noticed that under the circumstance of trying their best to evade the one-China principle and deny the common view, the Taiwan authorities lumped the restoration of dialogs between the ARATS and the SEF together with direct exchange of mail, trade and air and shipping services between the two sides, so as to seek a pretext for going back on their promise made before the election and continuing to delay direct exchange of mail, trade and air and shipping services between the two sides., they even politicize and try to obstruct the pure popular religious belief activity, such as believers of Ma Zu (Lady Matriarch) demand to go directly to the mainland to burn incense.
The Taiwan authorities' practice that goes against sincerity and good faith, and the wishes of the broad masses of Taiwan compatriots, in fact, means setting up new obstacles to the direct exchange of mail, trade, and air and shipping services between the two sides. Under the circumstance of not recognizing the one-China principle and not committing to reunification between the two sides, the Taiwan authorities made a big fuss about the summit between the North and the South of the Korean Peninsula, confuse the nature of the cross-Strait issue and the question of the DPRK and the ROK, in an attempt to use the method of the inter-Korean summit to negate the one-China principle. They talk glibly about "not sticking to form, not fixing venue, and not setting forth prerequisite", their essence is to negate the basis on which "the two sides of the Straits all adhere to the one-China principle", and deny the prerequisite for the ARATS and the SEF to conduct dialogs and negotiations under the one-China principle.
The article stresses that if the Taiwan authorities really have the sincerity and good intention to reopen dialogs and relax the cross-Strait relations, they should stop making high-sounding words and, proceeding from the common view reached between the ARATS and the SEF, make real efforts for reopening dialogs.
In This Section
|