Feature: The historical facts of the "92 Consensus" cannot be denied

　　Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, November 16th, title: The historical facts of the "92 Consensus" cannot be denied

　　Xinhua News Agency reporter

　　The DPP authorities stubbornly adhere to the "Taiwan Independence" stand. They not only refuse to recognize the "92 Consensus" that embodies the one-China principle and unilaterally undermine the political basis for mutual trust and interaction between the two sides of the Strait, but they also intensified their denial and discredit of the "92 Consensus". The "consensus" has been turned over and out of date", "the '92 Consensus' needs to be given new ideas" and so on.

What is the historical truth of the "92 Consensus"?

The recent interviews with witnesses revisited the past and restored in detail the historical process and facts of the "92 Consensus" reached.

　　In the early 1990s, in order to meet the development needs of cross-strait relations and solve specific problems in cross-strait exchanges, the two sides of the strait successively established the Straits Foundation and the Straits Association, which were authorized to handle cross-strait affairs and conduct negotiations.

　　It is understood that the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, when planning the contacts and negotiations between the two sides of the strait, believed that the SEF is the only institution authorized by the Taiwan authorities to negotiate with the mainland to handle cross-strait affairs involving public power. To avoid the "two Chinas" issue, it must first be clear. The nature of the negotiation, that is, the negotiation is a negotiation within a country, and the cross-strait exchanges handled are matters within the same country. They must be conducted on the basis of the one-China principle and prevent Taiwan from inserting content that violates the one-China principle in the negotiation.

Therefore, we should strive to reach a consensus on upholding the one-China principle with the SEF and ensure that the talks are conducted in a healthy manner on a common political basis.

　　In March 1992, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait began working discussions on two topics including the use of cross-strait notarization.

At the beginning of the talks, the ARATS clearly stated that the specific issues in cross-strait exchanges are China’s internal affairs and should be resolved through consultations based on the one-China principle; in transactional discussions, as long as the basic attitude of adhering to the One China is expressed, the politics of the One China are not involved. Meaning: The expression method can be fully negotiated and is willing to listen to the opinions of the SEF and people from all walks of life in Taiwan.

The above-mentioned reasonable propositions of the mainland side have caused repercussions among Taiwan compatriots, making the Taiwan authorities pay attention to, discuss and respond to the issue.

On August 1, the Taiwan authorities concluded "on the meaning of one China", stating that "both sides of the strait adhere to the one-China principle, but the meanings given to them are different." "Taiwan is a part of China, but the mainland It is also a part of China", "has formulated the'National Unification Program' and started unification steps."

In view of the fact that the Taiwan authorities have stated their attitude of "adhering to the one-China principle" in the above conclusions, on August 27, the head of the ARATS issued a written statement that "clear this point is of great significance to cross-strait affairs negotiations."

　　From October 28 to 30, 1992, the two associations continued to hold working discussions in Hong Kong on the issue of "the use of cross-strait notarization". The two sides had an in-depth discussion on how to express the attitude of adhering to the one-China principle in the text of the agreement.

　　Zhou Ning, vice chairman of the ARATS, was the deputy director of the consulting department of the ARATS at that time, and the chief negotiator of the Hong Kong ARATS.

He recalled: "A period of time before the talks, the attitudes expressed by the two parties on the issue of the one-China principle provided a certain foundation for this discussion. The fact that the members of the two sessions can sit down and discuss the issue of expression this time reflects the sincerity and goodwill of both parties. In the negotiation, they put forward their respective presentation plans. One of the presentation plans we mentioned is “in the process of joint efforts across the Taiwan Straits to seek national reunification, both sides adhere to the one-China principle and properly use cross-strait notarization documents (or other negotiated matters) Solution.'One of the formulations proposed by the SEF is,'In the process of joint efforts across the Taiwan Straits to seek national reunification, although both sides adhere to the one-China principle, they have different perceptions of the meaning of one China', He also suggested that'within the acceptable range of each other, each should explain their positions verbally.' This verbal expression plan was pronounced word by word by SEF personnel at the time. We recorded it and repeated it on site and confirmed it by SEF personnel."

　　“In view of the fact that the two parties have made substantial progress on how to express their attitude to adhere to the one-China principle during the transactional discussions, we have proposed specific measures to properly resolve the issue of verification of the use of notarial certificates, which were accepted by the other party, which cleared the way for reaching an agreement. This shows that the two associations can pragmatically solve the problems arising from cross-strait exchanges and give full play to the actual role of the two associations in enhancing the livelihood of the people on both sides of the strait. These are the results of the Hong Kong negotiations." Zhou Ning said.

　　After the negotiations in Hong Kong, the ARATS believed that the above-mentioned expression plan of the SEF showed an attitude of "seeking national reunification" and "adhering to the one-China principle"; the SEF proposed that "they have different perceptions of the meaning of one China." The Association can deal with it with its previously stated attitude of "not involving the political connotation of one China"; the ARATS has previously stated publicly that as long as it demonstrates its adherence to the one-China principle, the "method of expression" can be fully discussed. Therefore, it may consider working with the SEF on their own. Orally express the attitude of adhering to the one-China principle.

　　Sun Yafu, then deputy secretary-general of the ARATS, recalled: “To confirm the results of the Hong Kong working negotiations with the SEF, I was ordered to call the Secretary General of the SEF, Chen Rongjie on the morning of November 3, 1992. , Reiterated that the ARATS’s attitude towards adhering to the one-China principle in the business talks between the two sessions has expressed the opinions and concerns of the mainland. The other side said that the relevant attitude will be confirmed by a press release. That night, the SEF issued a press release and faxed it. To the ARATS, it means that'this association has obtained the consent of the competent authority to express it in oral statement and it is acceptable'."

　　On November 16, 1992, the ARATS sent a letter to the Straits Foundation, stating that the Straits Foundation’s attitude of adhering to the one-China principle in the Hong Kong talks "provided specific expressions, which clarified that both sides of the strait adhere to the one-China principle." Attached to the letter the above-mentioned expression plan of the SEF is intended to indicate that the SEF expression plan approved by the ARATS is this case; at the same time, the other party is informed that the main point of the ARATS’s oral statement is "Both sides of the strait adhere to the one-China principle. , And strive to seek national reunification. However, the political connotation of one China is not involved in cross-strait affairs negotiations."

Sun Yafu said: “In this way, the verbal statements of the two sessions are recorded in the same written document, which can be checked. The SEF replied to the letter on December 3 and expressed no objection to the letter sent by the ARATS. So far, both sides believe that The two sessions reached a consensus."

　　From the above historical facts, it can be seen that in 1992, authorized by both sides of the strait, the ARATS and the SEF reached a consensus on how to express the attitude of adhering to the one-China principle in the transactional discussions between the two organizations through Hong Kong negotiations and exchanges. As the "92 Consensus."

The core idea is that "both sides of the strait belong to one China and work together to seek national reunification."

What constitutes the consensus are two specific texts that have been negotiated and mutually approved.

In the consensus, both sides expressed the basic attitudes of "striving for national reunification" and "both sides of the strait uphold the one-China principle". Regarding the political meaning of one China, the SEF stated that "they have different perceptions", and the ARATS stated that "in Not involved in transactional discussions".

　　Under the historical conditions that the basic political differences between the two sides of the strait are difficult to resolve for a while, the "92 Consensus" has been reached, which embodies the political wisdom of seeking common ground while shelving differences. It shows that as long as both sides express an attitude of upholding the one-China principle, there will be a basic common position. On this basis, seeking common ground while reserving differences can reach a consensus acceptable to both parties; on the contrary, if there is no basic common position, there is no way to seek common ground, and there is no room for differences, and it is impossible to reach a consensus acceptable to both parties.

　　Sun Yafu pointed out that although the "92 Consensus" is a consensus expressed by each individual orally, its process and content are clearly documented and documented as evidence, and it is always complete and clear, which cannot be denied or distorted.

The DPP authorities distorted and denied the "92 Consensus" and regarded it as a hate. It seriously violated objective historical facts, deliberately deceived and misled the people, provoked cross-strait confrontation, and betrayed Taiwan’s political commitment to the mainland. It is extremely irresponsible and very dangerous to seek "independence" nature and one-party selfishness, and to disregard the peace and stability of cross-strait relations and the welfare and interests of the people of Taiwan.