[Cross-Strait Quick Review No. 1099]
At the regular press conference held by the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council yesterday, a reporter asked questions. When the leaders of the DPP authorities had video conversations with American think tanks, they claimed on the one hand that they were looking forward to "constructive cross-strait dialogue" and on the other hand they took Hong Kong , The South China Sea, and Xinjiang to attack the mainland.
The Taiwan Mainland Affairs Commission also recently stated that it "hopes that the two sides of the strait can communicate pragmatically without preconditions."
What does such a contradictory statement show?
In response, Zhu Fenglian, a spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, said that the root of the current tension in cross-strait relations lies in the fact that the DPP authorities refuse to recognize the "92 Consensus" and unilaterally undermine the common political basis for cross-strait dialogue and consultation.
Our Taiwan policy is clear and consistent.
To deny the "92 Consensus" and deviate from the one-China principle, there is no way to talk about any dialogue and exchanges.
Zhu Fenglian's answer pointedly pointed out the key points of some politicians on the island.
That is, there is no "one China", and the "goodwill slogans" that the DPP authorities want to talk to are hypocritical.
The DPP authorities uphold this hypocritical attitude of "I just want to split China's land, but advocate dialogue." The people in mainland China will never accept it.
"Actions speak louder than words".
We see whether the DPP authorities want to ease cross-strait relations and initiate cross-strait dialogue, not by what they say, but by what they have done.
The DPP authorities verbally say that they want to "reconcile" and "dialogue", but they are intensively engaged in "relying on the United States for independence" and "providing in the middle". It can be seen that they have no sincerity at all. They just acted as a superficial posture and speculated that they wanted to bring public opinion The ingredients are larger.
It is a pity that their acting skills are too exaggerated, and their words and deeds are too split to deceive the people on both sides of the strait.
In fact, the interactive model of cross-strait relations has already existed, has been recognized by both sides, and has been successfully practiced.
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait have conducted a series of consultations and dialogues on the basis of the "92 Consensus" that embodies the one-China principle, and signed a number of exchange and cooperation agreements, which promoted the development of cross-strait relations and also complied with the people on both sides of the strait, especially the people in Taiwan, who "seeking peace and People on both sides of the strait have also benefited from the mainstream public opinion of seeking stability and development. Facts have proved that this is in line with the well-being of the people on both sides of the strait.
However, the DPP authorities did not take the bright road. On the surface they wanted to conduct so-called "pragmatic communication", but they refused to recognize the principled, substantive and fundamental "One China" issue, even on the island. The Inner University is engaged in "de-sinicization" activities in education, culture, military, and public opinion, and it has to link up with external forces to "provoke independence and provocation". This is an important reason why the DPP authorities have not gained the trust of the mainland.
Here we would like to advise the "independence faction" on the island that mainland China will never give in to the bottom line of the one-China principle. Only by abandoning "Taiwan independence" can the DPP authorities find their way in cross-strait relations. If you really have good intentions, please put away the false and empty false signals and take pragmatic and true actions to truly open the door to easing cross-strait relations and resolving the cross-strait deadlock. (Text/Shi Wei)