Chinese Magazine Criticises Statement Of Taiwan Leaders

Cross-Straits Relations Monthly has a four-page article this month that tells the truth about negotiations across the Taiwan Straits this decade.

There was a breakthrough in stalled negotiations across the Straits at the end of 1987, and economic and cultural exchanges increased. But, many problems emerged in cross-Straits relations. To deal with the problems, the Foundation for Exchanges Across the Taiwan Straits was established in Taiwan in November, 1990.

Then, the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee's Taiwan Affairs Office and the State Council's Taiwan Affairs Office pushed for establishing the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits in December, 1991. ARATS then promoted exchanges and discussions with FEATS under the One China principle.

Their first negotiations were held March 23-26, 1992. FEATS was against the One China principle and ARATS officials responded at a news conference on March 30 by saying that the One China principle was the only way to solve problems across the Straits.

In November 1992, ARATS and FEATS reached an agreement on adhering to the One China principle but Taiwan authorities have distorted this with different definitions in recent years to back up their divisive policies.

Tang Shubei, ARATS' vice-president, said that the One China principle is contained in Taiwan documents on reunification and that as long as Taiwan sticks to the One China principle, the two sides can hold negotiation on how to present their opinions.

The ARATS proposal got a great deal of attention in Taiwan and meant that the Taiwan authorities had to face this question. In August that year, after many debates the Taiwan authorities accepted the One China principle and admitted that Taiwan is part of China.

From October 28 to 30, 1992, there were new negotiations in Hong Kong, after which the two in November seemed to reach an understanding on adhering to the One China principle but did not discuss the meaning of "One China" and said nothing of an agreement.

Lee Teng-hui then went further down the road of divisiveness and Taiwan authorities distorted the understanding reached by ARATS and FEATS by defending Lee's recent "two states" statement, the article says, emphasizing that the the understanding of ARATS and FEATS of November 1992 is a part of history and can not be changed and political and economic dialogues between them can resume only if they are based on the One China principle.