1992 consensus

Encyclopedia : 1 : 19 : 199 : 1992 consensus

The "Consensus of 1992" (Chinese:九二共識; literally, "92 Consensus") describes an alleged agreement that both Mainland China and Taiwan belong to one China with both sides having different interpretations over the meaning of that term. In a surprise revelation in 2006, former Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) official Su Chi admitted that he made up the term in 2000.

The People's Republic of China has stated that any group in Taiwan that it has formal talks with must support the 1992 Consensus. On Taiwan, the 1992 Consensus is supported by the parties that make up the pan-Blue coalition which include the Kuomintang and the People's First Party, and was the basis by which the leaders of those parties travelled to mainland China in 2005 for discussions with the Communist Party of China. The pan-Green coalition and the ROC government officials reject the very existence of 1992 Consensus and argue that the name is misleading because no consensus was reached over the issue of one China in meetings between PRC and ROC representatives in 1992. Further, President Chen ordered a search of all government records for evidence supporting the alleged consensus and having not found any, he concluded that there never was such a consensus.

Usage surrounding the Wang-Koo talks

The so-called "1992 Consensus" resulted from a November 1992 meeting in Hong Kong between the mainland-based Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and the Taiwan-based Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF). These semi-official bodies were authorized by their respective governments to negotiate solutions to practical problems that had arisen from growing cross-strait commerce. The conclusion they reached was intended as a means of side-stepping the conflict over the political status of Taiwan. At the time of the meeting, Hong Kong was under British rule and therefore considered neutral territory by both sides.

As a result of the 1992 meeting, ARATS Chairman Wang Daohan and SEF Chairman Koo Chen-fu met in Singapore on April 27, 1993 in what became known as the "Wang-Koo talks." They concluded agreements on document authentication, postal transfers, and a schedule for future ARATS-SEF meetings.

Talks were delayed as tensions rose in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, but in October 1998 a second round of "Wang-Koo talks" were held in Shanghai. Wang and Koo agreed to meet again in Taiwan in the autumn of 1999, but the meeting was called off by the mainland side when President Lee Teng-hui proposed his "two-states theory" whereby each side would treat the other as separate state. PRC officials have indicated that this position is unacceptable.

In a speech on October 10, 2004[Chen's speech of 10/10/04], President Chen Shui-bian expressed his willingness in initiate dialogue with PRC leaders on "the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong". This formulation however presumes that no agreement on one China was made in the 1992 meeting, and Chen's speech was widely seen as an effort to establish a basis for negotiations with the PRC without accepting the one China principle.

The 1992 Consensus was invoked again the following year, when Lien Chan and Song Chu-Yu made separate trips to Mainland China to begin party-to-party dialogue between the CCP and KMT and between the CCP and PFP. Both leaders explicitly endorsed the 1992 Consensus as defined by the CCP.

Dispute over the \"1992 Consensus\"

Supporters of the pan-Green coalition have argued that the meetings in 1992 did not come to any agreement over the one China principle. In support of this view, they point out that both Hsu Huei-yu and Koo Chen-fu, who participated in the 1992 meeting as SEF delegates, have publicly affirmed that the meeting did not result in any consensus on the "one China" issue. Instead, they claim, both sides agreed to proceed with future meetings on the basis of equality and mutual respect. Koo stated in his biography that, "Both sides across the strait have different interpretations of the 1992 Hong Kong meeting. Rather than using 'consensus,' the term of art should be 'understanding' or 'accord' to better reflect the fact, thus avoiding untruthful application."

The Chief of the ROC Mainland Affairs Council also indicated that no consensus was reached as a result of the 1992 meeting and that the term "Consensus of 1992" was only introduced by the mass media in 1995. Some Taiwan independence supporters, such as former President Lee Teng-hui, point to a lack of documentation to argue that the consensus never existed.["Lee denies existence of '1992 consensus,'"] The China Post, November 8, 2001 However, it is also the case that as of 1992, the government of the ROC still formally adhered to a "one China" position, one which it only moved away from in the late-1990's.

According to Raymond Burghardt, the chair of the American Institute in Taiwan, the US's de facto embassy in Taiwan:

"[There was] some language [in the faxes] that overlapped and some language that differed." Then Taiwan and China agreed to conduct dialogue based on their statements written in those faxes. "That's what happened. Nothing more or nothing less," Burghardt said, adding that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) called this the "1992 consensus," which was to some extent "confusing and misleading. To me, I'm not sure why you could call that a consensus."[Central News Agency - Washington desk, "AIT pans `1992 consensus'", Taipei Times, Feb 28, 2006]

Burghardt is thought to be the only US official to have expressed a position on the existence of the so-called 1992 consensus.

In a televised debate between Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian and KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou on April 2006, Ma urged Chen to accept the 1992 Consensus as the basis to beginning peace talks. Chen criticized Ma as being delusional, stating that the Chinese position has always been that the One China defines as Taiwan being part of the PRC regime in Beijing. Chen added that Ma should ask honorary chairman Lien Chan in his visit to the mainland to inquire Chinese president Hu Jintao about Ma's view on the 1992 Consensus. The KMT refused Chen's request, citing that a pro-independent advocate does not deserve his message to be transmitted through the pro-unification channels.

References and external links

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.