Consensus on Oct 19, 2004

Consensus not reached at meeting in 1992

By Chin Heng-wei

Taiwan and China did not reach a consensus during their 1992 meeting in Hong Kong. Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Koo Chen-fu confirmed that there was no consensus at all. Former president Lee Teng-hui also said, "If we must say there was a consensus after the 1992 meeting, then the most realistic consensus was `there was no consensus.'" Wasn't Lee's statement clear enough? Who can be more authoritative than Lee on the matter?

In his Double Ten National Day speech, President Chen Shui-bian suggested that the two sides "use the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong" for future negotiations. The "1992 meeting" is a correct term, compared with the so-called "1992 consensus." However, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan has distorted Chen's words, arguing there was a consensus reached. As Lien said, the spirit of the 1992 meeting lay in the consensus of "one China," with each side making its own interpretation. He therefore questioned whether Chen -- who refused to acknowledge the "1992 consensus" in the past -- has decided to accept Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems" by mentioning the 1992 meeting again. Chen's mention of the 1992 meeting was just a statement of fact.

The consensus of "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" will certainly lead to "one country, two systems." On the contrary, the 1992 meeting was simply a meeting without any conclusion. Naturally, a consensus does not exist.

The point is, why does Lien have to define the 1992 meeting as a consensus? Obviously, his purpose is to promote the idea of a consensus. This is tantamount to accepting Beijing's "one China" principle. In light of the remarks made by China's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing, we can understand why Lien and the blue camp are holding up the idea of a "1992 consensus" -- the KMT and Bei-jing are becoming friends in light of their pro-unification stance.

Zhang's words were very clear: "In 1992, China's Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait [ARATS] and the SEF reached the consensus verbally that the two sides adhere to the `one China' principle. This fact cannot be denied."

"If Taiwan's leaders ac-knowledge the `1992 consensus,' then cross-strait dialogue and talks could be resumed immediately. This stand has never changed," Zhang said.

His words are exactly the same as those of Lien. The only difference is that Beijing is ser-ious about its "one China" (meaning the People's Republic of China, PRC) principle, while Lien and the blue camp are perhaps not so serious about their "one China" (meaning the Republic of China, ROC) principle.

Specifically, Lien is using the ROC -- which has ceased to exist -- to smuggle the PRC into Taiwan. Otherwise, why would Beijing possibly agree with the idea of "one China, with each side making its own interpretation?"

According to China's latest white paper entitled, The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue, published in 2000, "In 1949, the PRC's government was proclaimed, replacing the ROC's government to become the only legal government of the whole of China and its sole legal representative in the international arena, thereby bringing the historical status of the ROC to an end." As a result, acknowledging "one China" is acknowledging Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems." How can there be any variation in this interpretation?

Thus, there was no consensus reached during the 1992 meeting, nor was there a consensus on "one China, with each side making its own interpretation."

Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.

Taiwan may seek `facilitators' for cross-strait talks

THIRD PARTY: As cross-strait ties remain at a standstill since Chen's National Day speech, the government may invite former US leaders to help promote bilateral talks

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER

The government has not ruled out the possibility of inviting former US leaders to act as "facilitators" helping both sides of the Taiwan Strait conduct bilateral talks, given the Taiwan is equipped to stand up to China's military threat, a top cross-strait policymaker said yesterday.

"If you look at the six assurances promised to Taiwan by the US government, one of them is not to serve as a mediator, nor to push Taiwan to talk to China," said Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu.

"As it's very important for us that the Chinese agree to talks, we're urging the international community to tell Beijing to talk to us and to facilitate a more conducive environment for the two sides," Wu said.

"A better way to refer to the the US' role [in cross-strait negotiations] is as a facilitator," he added.

Wu made the remarks yesterday afternoon in response to a media queries after meeting with 35 foreign correspondents from 29 international media outlets at the Executive Yuan.

In addition to Wu, Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen and Vice Minister of National Defense Tsai Ming-shian attended the gathering.

Wu also dismissed rumors that the nation is developing nuclear weapons after the US expressed concern over the nation's possible nuclear weapon activities.

"Our stance on the issue is crystal clear: no development, no production, no acquisition, no storage and no use of any nuclear weapons," Wu said.

Last Tuesday, People First Party (PFP) Legislator Nelson Ku confronted Premier Yu Shyi-kun in the legislature, alleging that a five-person team, including current and past members from the Chen administration, are planning the development of nuclear weapons. Yu denied the allegation.

Responding to the question regarding the impact the government's NT$600 billion arms procurement budget would have on cross-strait relations, Wu said the ball was in China's court.

"The fundamental thing is that China should stop threatening Taiwan militarily," Wu said. "If they don't threaten Taiwan militarily, there is no need for Taiwan to purchase more weapons."

Wu reiterated that the arms procurement project is not aimed at defeating China but at creating a "win-win situation" in the Taiwan Strait.

"As President Chen Shui-bian made clear in his National Day speech regarding cross-strait relations, unless the both sides win at the same time, it is a no-win situation," he said.

"We're thinking of a win-win situation, rather than defeating the Chinese," he said.

Mark Chen also said yesterday that the nation does not engage in "checkbook diplomacy" after Costa Rica's foreign ministry had requested an explanation over alleged political donations to the country's former president.

"I've explained it in several occasions that we have signed a five-year contact with [Costa Rica] to provide financial aid," he said.

"While the allocation of the funding has to go through a standard operating procedure here, we have no comment on how the governments of our allies use the money."

Chen, however, called on countries receiving financial aid to make the process of how the money is used more transparent.

Although Mark Chen said he knew nothing about a rumor that President Chen refused financial aid to one of Taiwan's allies in Central America, the government's stance on financial aid to foreign countries is clear.

"We'll continue to help needy countries because we were once a beneficiary of aid during the 1950s and 1960s," the minister said.

"Now it's time for us to give back to the world, as we're becoming financially better-off," he said.

MAC urges talks on cross-strait transport links

CONNECTING: The MAC urged Beijing to set aside the `one China' principle row and work out a plan for direct transport links across the Taiwan Strait

By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER

Beijing's insistence on the "one China" principle is the main obstacle to cross-strait dialogue, Mainland Affairs Council Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-san said yesterday.

President Chen Shui-bian's Double Ten National Day address, which invited Beijing to talk with Taipei on the basis of a meeting held in Hong Kong in 1992, had been aimed at expanding cross-strait exchanges, Chiu said.

"The council hopes Beijing can respond to the president's invitation with goodwill rather than causing more difficulties," Chiu said at a seminar discussing the significance of the 1992 Hong Kong meeting.

Beijing claims both Taiwan and China agreed on the "one China" principle during the meeting, often referred to as the "1992 consensus," which took place while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was in power. The KMT said, however, that the "1992 consensus" means there is "one China, which is open to interpretation."

Chiu noted that rules would have to established before negotiations could take place.

"China has been attempting to bring Taiwan into the `one China' framework in all talks that have been proposed.

"This has led to the current stalemate we find ourselves in," he said.

Chiu also criticized the KMT's interpretation of the "1992 consensus," noting the international community -- which widely accepts Beijing's "one China" principle -- would not pay attention to the party's explanation of the consensus.

Calling on Beijing to start talks on direct transportation links, Chiu said Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen in 2000 and 2002 said negotiations on the links need not address the "one China" principle.

Council Chairman Joseph Wu also urged China to accept the basis of the 1992 Hong Kong meeting to resume talks with Taiwan.

Meanwhile, Pao Cheng-kang, Taiwan's new representative to Hong Kong, arrived in the territory yesterday.

He told reporters at Hong Kong's airport that he would do his best to promote exchanges between Taiwan and Hong Kong.