What Controversy Is to Be Shelved?: Asks a Commentary

A signed article to be carried in the journal, "Cross-Straits Relations", the September issue, points out that if the new leader of the Taiwan authorities recognizes one China in a straightforward manner, the two sides across the Straits can immediately start negotiations. The mainland welcomes any effort to get closer to acceptance of the one China principle.

The signed article, entitled "What Controversy Is to Be Shelved?", points out that the one China principle is the foundation and prerequisite for the development of cross-Straits relations and peaceful reunification. The words and deeds uttered and performed by the new leader of the Taiwan authorities toward the one China principle since he came to power, whether approached from his description of one China as something for the future, or from his description of the common view on "both sides across the Straits adhere to the one China principle", reached between the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) in 1992 and expressed respectively in a verbal method, as "common view lacking common understanding", can be summed up in the words: refusing to recognize and accept one China. On July 31, he made the remark about "the 1992 spirit", asserting that this spirit refers to "dialog, exchange and shelving controversy". What he said is quite pleasing to the ears, and "shelving controversy" is a new remark, but the essence of the matter that needs to be clarified is what controversy is to be pigeonholed!

In the opinion of the author, the common view reached between ARATS and SEF in 1992 is based on the two formulas of expressions put forward respectively by ARATS and SEF. These two formulas both indicated the attitude of adhering to the one China principle and pursuing national reunification. There are also contents about shelving controversy in the two formulas, i.e., "there are different understandings in regard to the implication of one China" as stated in the SEF formula, while the ARATS formula stated "in the cross-Straits affairs discussions, it does not involve the implication of one China". Therefore, the fact should be that ARATS and SEF have reached the common view of adhering to the one China principle, there is no controversy over this; no discussion was held on the implication of one China, so it can be said that disputes over this point was shelved. The one China principle cannot be shelved. On the premise of sticking to the one China principle, difference between the two sides across the Straits in regard to the implication of one China, if it cannot be solved for the time being, common ground can be sought and differences can be reserved, so the difference can be temporarily shelved. Of course, the difference still needs to be eventually resolved in the process of seeking peaceful reunification. Describing in general terms the "spirit of 1992" as shelving controversy does not conform with facts; it also stealthily substitutes the concept by shelving the one China principle, it distorts the spirit of the common view reached between ARATS and SEF in 1992. In fact, the aim it wants to achieve is to negate the common view reached by the two organizations in 1992, and refuse to recognize and accept the one China principle. This is what we cannot accept.

The author wrote that the mainland demands that the Taiwan authorities adhere to one China, what is to be upheld after all has always been clear over the past decades. This spirit has been consistently carried on to this date. Taiwan compatriots, please read what Vice-Premier Qian Qichen said on January 26, 1998, "Prior to reunification, in handling the cross-Straits affairs, particularly during cross-Straits negotiations, upholding the one China principle means upholding the fact that there is only one China in the world, Taiwan is a part of China, and China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brooks no separation." The consistent attitude of the mainland has been clearly explained.

The article stresses, "There is no need for reticence, there is difference between us and the Taiwan authorities in their views concerning the implication of one China. However, the difference, however big it is, should not become a reason for denying one China. No matter how Taiwan authorities stress differences, one core factor cannot be changed, that is, China's sovereignty and territory cannot be separated." Although the two sides across the Straits have not as yet been reunified, sovereignty and territory remain undivided and both sides are still one China. One China is a reality, not a fictitious thing, it is integral, Taiwan and the mainland both belong to one China. The key to upholding the one China principle is to safeguard China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The article says in conclusion, "The new leader of Taiwan authorities has repeatedly said that he has expressed his sincerity and goodwill for dialogs and negotiations. Your refusal to recognize and accept one China, and your evasion of serious matters and taking up trifles and avoiding real issues while dwelling on the abstract are the most salient expression of your lack of sincerity and good intention, so this can deceive nobody. Compatriots across the Straits will not agree. Recognizing one China in a straightforward way will make it possible to immediately start negotiations. The mainland welcomes any effort to get closer to acceptance of the one China principle.

People's Daily Online --- http://www.peopledaily.com.cn/english/