The KMT news organ passed around a really interesting article on the 1992 Consensus, that faux consensus that never existed, entitled " Kao Koong-lian: Historical Fact of “1992 Talks” Actually a Breakdown"....
First, the “1992 Consensus” came about as the result of the fact that Taiwan disagreed with the Mainland’s so-called “one China” principle. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) and the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) were established in 1991 and started to engage in cross-Strait exchanges, reaching an agreement on the authentication of documents and inquiries into registered mail. The two sides of the Strait reached a consensus with respect to the content of the agreement, but the Mainland insisted on putting the “one China” principle in the preface of the agreement, but Taiwan strongly opposed this provision. [MT: note that China has never accepted this "consensus" and has never agreed to disagree]The whole idea of the 1992 Consensus was invented in 2000. It did not exist before that, and never formed the basis of the relationship between the CCP and the KMT. Let's ask the expert:
The two sides of the Strait each refused to budge on whether or not to include the “one China” principle in the agreement. By the end of October 1992, the two sides of the Strait agreed to meet in Hong Kong for another round of talks. As to the interpretation of “one China,” the two sides of the Strait each submitted five proposals, but both sides of the Strait refused to accept the proposals of the other side. Consequently, Taiwan submitted another three proposals, but the Mainland delegation did not respond and returned to the Mainland. The Taiwan delegates expressed good faith by remaining in Hong Kong, but still failed to get any response from the Mainland. Therefore, no consensus was reached during the 1992 talks as the negotiations broke down. Tsai Ing-wen has conceded the historical fact that talks between the two sides of the Strait took place in Hong Kong in 1992, but refuses to accept the fact that a consensus was reached after the talks broke down, showing that Tsai is only willing to accept historical facts that conform to her personal political perspective. [MT: the talks broke down precisely over the One China principle -- which Beijing insists can only mean the PRC, and KMT officials simply invented the "consensus" later. What does it mean that they agreed on a consensus later? See below...]
The Mainland later faxed Taiwan a letter in the beginning of November 1992, stating that the Mainland accepted one of the three proposed interpretations of “one China” submitted by Taiwan and the Mainland’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) faxed a formal letter to the SEF on November 16. In the Mainland’s fax, it stated: “During the working talks in Hong Kong, your side recommended that both sides, under the premise of mutual understanding, adopt respective verbal statements to interpret the one China principle. In addition, your side presented concrete contents for the interpretation (See attachment), which explicitly stated that both sides insist on the one China principle, which was covered later in various Taiwan newspapers. We have noticed that Mr. Shi Hwei-yow on November 11 issued a written public statement, expressing agreement with the above-mentioned recommendation. On November 3rd, your side formally notified us by letter that your side had secured the consent of the Taiwan authorities, i.e., “respective interpretations by verbal statements”. Our side fully respects and accepts your recommendation and telephoned Mr. Chen Rong-Jye on November 3rd.” [MT: you can see that no consensus was reached because they could not agree on what "China" meant. They just faxed each other "verbal statements" i.e. noises.]
The Mainland used 72 Chinese characters to describe the consensus, while Taiwan used 83 characters. The media wanted a simple headline instead of Taiwan’s 83-character: “Although the two sides of the Strait insist on the one China principle, there are different interpretations of one China.” Therefore, the whole phrase was condensed to “one China, different interpretations.” [MT: note the passive voice: who "condensed it? The Taiwan side. It never existed for the PRC.] The two sides of the Strait met half-way by vaguely expressing their views on sensitive issues. Based on the foundation of the follow-up interactions between the SEF and ARATS, the historic Koo-Wang talks in Singapore in 1993 took place.[MT: Again note that the Koo-Wang talks occurred with no reference to the alleged consensus, but instead on the growing relationship between the SEF and ARATS. No consensus made or needed.]
In April 2000, then MAC Chairman Su Chi was concerned that the incoming DPP administration might not accept “one China” in the cross-Strait consensus, so he suggested using the “1992 Consensus” to describe the exchange of letters by fax in 1992. [MT: As I have always said, the 1992 Consensus was invented to force the DPP into the KMT's one China cage. It's quite clear right here. The KMT and the CCP had gone 8 years after 1992 with nary a reference to any consensus -- it wasn't needed for them to talk, and when LTH coined the special "state to state" idea, China immediately cut off the Koo-Wang talks. When Chen was elected, China discovered it needed the KMT and the 1992 Consensus started appearing in the cross-strait lexicon.] Some might think that it was similar to “agree to disagree” and recommend using “understanding” to replace “consensus.” Recently, Huang Nien (黃年) from the United Daily News, wrote a commentary and recommended using “exchange of letters through fax in 1992” to replace the “1992 Consensus.” Consensus, understanding, and exchange of letters all describe the same historical fact, but the phrase the 1992 talks fails to include the fact that a consensus was reached subsequent to the talks.
[Former President] Lee denied that a consensus was reached in 1992 between Taiwan and China, saying Ma’s claim that the “1992 consensus” was the most significant consensus made across the Taiwan Strait was “simply talking nonsense.”_____________
“There is no such consensus,” Lee said, adding that he had asked then-Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) legal bureau head Shi Hwei-yow (許惠祐), then-SEF deputy secretary-general Chen Rong-jye (陳榮傑) and then-SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) — who were the delegates to the cross-strait meeting in 1992 — about the meeting and was told there had been no such consensus.
- Don't miss the always insightful James Wang in the TT on how Chou En-lai feared Resolution 2758
- No, tensions are not really rising between Taiwan and Japan, though you wouldn't know it from reading the title to this piece. This dust-up with Japan is just Ma Ying-jeou's last vicious little gift to Beijing: yanking Tokyo's chain. Naturally, that won't be mentioned...
- A new report from Project 2049 on China, the US, and Taiwan
- Chen Shui-bian warned not to attend state banquet for Tsai Ing-wen
- The Linyuan Naptha cracker is constantly catching on fire.
- Low salaries causing brain drain. Let's map out everything: Taiwan businesses invest overseas, failing to grow the local economy while building Taiwan's worst enemy, force salaries down at home so talent leaves, and then complain they can't find anyone and Taiwan is not prepared for the coming economic competition. Blaming. the. victim.
- Majority of people want Tsai to not mention the 1992 Consensus
- Hep A cases reach record high
- Taiwan defense budget slumps. Hey US, if you hadn't supported Ma, this might not have happened.
- International media finally discovering China's fishing fleet as its seaborne militia
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!