(East-West Question) Tian Feilong: Why is the "1992 Consensus" a milestone in the process of peaceful reunification across the Taiwan Strait?
China News Agency, Beijing, June 8th: Why is the "1992 Consensus" a milestone in the process of peaceful reunification across the Taiwan Strait?
Author Tian Feilong, associate professor of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics School of Law, Ph.D.
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the 1992 Consensus.
In November last year, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China clearly put forward the overall strategy for resolving the Taiwan issue in the new era in the "third historical resolution", and included the "1992 Consensus" as the premise and foundation of cross-strait relations.
The one-China principle is the core meaning of the "1992 Consensus", and it is also the bottom-line basis for countering "Taiwan independence" and external intervening forces.
The "1992 Consensus" is a milestone in the process of peaceful reunification between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and it is an objective political consensus, and "conspiracy to reunify" is included in it.
Only by recovering and maintaining this consensus can all the existing achievements of peaceful development on both sides of the strait be effectively continued and the ultimate goal of peaceful reunification can be achieved in an orderly manner.
The Objectivity and Normativeness of the "1992 Consensus"
The Taiwan issue, in nature, is a legacy of China's civil war, and it is also an issue of China's national construction and modernization.
In the process of conceiving a strategic framework for the Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan issues, the “long-term plan for Hong Kong and Macao, making full use of it” and the “one outline and four goals” for Taiwan gradually took shape, forming the early exploration and prototype of the “one country, two systems” policy.
However, limited to the situation of cross-strait hostility and externalities of the US-Soviet Cold War pattern, these ideas have not been translated into concrete negotiation results and institutional reality.
In the 1980s, the "one country, two systems" policy was first applied to Hong Kong and Macao and formed specific institutional achievements. "Peaceful reunification, one country, two systems" has also become the principle framework for work with Taiwan.
In the early 1990s, in response to the strong demands of the people for peaceful exchanges, high-level officials from both sides of the Taiwan Strait began to carry out a negotiation model with Chinese wisdom from the scope of "transactional negotiation", that is, authorizing private institutions to carry out special transactional negotiation, ARATS and SEF. The "two sessions model" was thus formed.
The consultation mechanism between the two sessions is an important breakthrough in the institutionalized negotiation of cross-strait relations. More than 20 existing cross-strait agreements have widely benefited the convenience and protection of rights and interests of people on both sides of the strait.
However, as authorized consultative bodies, the two sessions face a premise in terms of working contacts and document presentation, that is, how to express cross-strait relations and the political nature of cross-strait institutional negotiation.
This touches on a Chinese principle issue.
On the political basis of "similarities outweigh differences", after many formal talks and exchange of official documents between the ARATS and the SEF, the oral formulation of the "1992 Consensus" was finally determined.
Whether it is the archived historical documents or the participants in the negotiations, there is sufficient evidence to prove the objectivity of the "1992 Consensus".
Denying the "1992 Consensus" and betraying the one-China principle is a manifestation of "historical nihilism" in the category of cross-strait relations and a bottom-line provocation of "Taiwan independence"ism.
After the "1992 Consensus" was reached, the following year (1993), Wang Daohan, chairman of the ARATS, successfully held talks with Gu Zhenfu, chairman of the Taiwan SEF.
The picture shows the historic moment of the "Wang-Gu Talks".
Photo by China News Agency reporter Jia Guorong
In the oral formulation of the "1992 Consensus" reached by the ARATS and the SEF, the ARATS version is that "both sides of the Taiwan Strait adhere to the one-China principle and strive to seek national reunification. The Political Meaning of One China”; the SEF’s version is “In the process of making joint efforts on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to seek national reunification, although both sides adhere to the principle of one China, they have different perceptions of the meaning of one China”.
These two versions are the final versions negotiated by the two conferences, and are listed as authoritative textual evidence in the final document sent by the ARATS to the SEF. The SEF did not express any objection in the reply.
This shows that: first, the negotiation between the two sessions of the "1992 Consensus" and the review and approval procedures of the public authorities on both sides of the strait are complete, and the "oral statement" is also a tacit agreement between the two parties; second, the two versions of the statement are not principled Differences, differences in cognition of the specific meaning of one China do not affect the consensus on the general principle of one China itself; third, the core meaning of the "1992 Consensus" is that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China and work together to seek national reunification, that is, one China. The Chinese principle and the principle of conspiracy to unify.
In 2016, Ma Ying-jeou, the then leader of the Taiwan authorities, went to the Kinmen Peace Memorial Park, and rang the peace bell with Gu Yanzhuoyun, the widow of former chairman of the SEF, Gu Zhenfu, and others, hoping that cross-strait relations will continue to develop peacefully.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Zheng Qiao
Secession, "Taiwan Independence" and the Harm of External Intervention
Since the DPP took full power in 2016, it can be said that it has completely abandoned the "1992 Consensus" and has comprehensively carried out "de-sinicized" economic offshore and political and legal isolation operations.
On the internationalization line, the DPP has adopted a "one-sided" pro-US policy, deviating from the resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the consensus of the international community, in an attempt to rely on US support to create "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" in the international space The fact of division is fundamentally undermining the one-China principle.
In October 2021, Tsai Ing-wen openly proposed the theory of "cross-strait non-subordination", directly challenging the core meaning of the "1992 Consensus" that "both sides of the strait belong to one China".
Interacting with the separatism and "Taiwan independence" on the island, the interventions of the US and Western forces continued to escalate.
The retrogression of the US's position on the one-China issue and its "sausage-cutting" in-depth intervention are one of the most important threats to the "1992 Consensus" and the process of peaceful reunification across the Taiwan Strait.
The U.S. supports the "internationalization of Taiwan" through a special act, instigating its allies to "support Taiwan" and create a "quasi-state" image and positioning of Taiwan in the international space, blurring the international perception of "one China".
The "Five Eyes" alliance, the European Union, Japan, etc. all have coordinated Taiwan-related actions or signs.
Various signs such as the "Taiwan Representative Office" scandal in Lithuania and the World Health Assembly's breakthrough are all concrete cases of support for "Taiwan's internationalization" and interventionism.
In the future, between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, between China and the United States, and among the agendas of international organizations and the international community, the disputes over the "1992 Consensus" embodying the one-China principle and the specific international law connotation of "one China" may continue to be peaceful. deepen.
In February 2022, Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, reiterated in Beijing that adhering to the "1992 Consensus" and opposing "Taiwan independence" are still the basis for exchanges, cooperation and dialogue between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Yang Kejia
From "1992 Consensus" to Complete Unity
The "1992 Consensus" not only exists objectively, but also has normative and binding force.
The complete development of cross-strait relations must take complete reunification as the ultimate goal, and the premise and specific institutionalized results of cross-strait transactional consultation provided by the "1992 Consensus" should also serve the long-term goal of complete reunification in terms of logic and function.
To view and apply the "1992 Consensus" in the new era of national rejuvenation, it is necessary to have a long-term historical perspective and policy history thinking, that is, the "1992 Consensus" does not exist in isolation, but the political interaction between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait for more than 70 years and the direction towards peaceful reunification A milestone achievement of progress should be positioned accurately and completely under the general logic of "peaceful reunification and one country, two systems".
Therefore, the "1992 Consensus" is not only a political anchor for maintaining "status quo peace", but also a driving force for leading the process of peaceful reunification.
In 2016, more than 1,000 Taiwanese people gathered in front of the Central Party Headquarters of the Democratic Progressive Party in Taipei, convened by a Taiwanese civil society, to call on the incoming authorities to adhere to the "1992 Consensus".
Photo by China News Agency reporter Chen Xiaoyuan
On January 2, 2019, General Secretary Xi Jinping systematically reviewed the historical process and consensus basis of cross-strait relations including the "1992 Consensus" at the 40th anniversary of the publication of the "Message to Compatriots in Taiwan", and proposed the goal of final peaceful reunification. The "One Country, Two Systems" Taiwan plan.
This is a legitimate, sensible and reasonable promotion measure for the mainland to adhere to the one-China principle and the timetable and roadmap of "conspiracy to reunify", and it is also a legitimate proposal for national rejuvenation and national reunification to Chinese people on both sides of the strait.
Regrettably, the DPP authorities stigmatized the "1992 Consensus" uncontrollably for the self-interest of one party, used or even intervened in the Hong Kong amendment bill to crack down on "One Country, Two Systems", and revised the so-called "Five National Security Laws" and "National Security Laws". "Reverse Osmosis Law", which will brutally political exclusion and legal punishment of the ruling forces and people of insight on the island who promote the great cause of peaceful reunification across the strait and respond to the "One Country, Two Systems" Taiwan proposal, and create "regime-related terror" on the island.
The "Taiwan Independence" forces of the Democratic Progressive Party and the intervening forces in the United States and the West have seriously interfered and damaged the "1992 Consensus", and formed the so-called "natural independence" pan-nativist ideology and green terror policy system on the island. In the interaction between Taiwan, the international political effect of the "Taiwan brand" and the cognitive conflict of "One China" have formed.
These are the main obstacles to the peaceful reunification of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
To this end, we must clarify the historical truth, normative connotation and development prospects of the "1992 Consensus" from the perspectives of history, jurisprudence and policy system, and resolutely carry out political and legal struggle against "Taiwan independence" and anti-intervention. Firmly grasp the dominance and initiative in cross-strait relations.
In the future process of cross-strait relations, only by firmly activating and fully releasing the normative values and consensus factors of "belonging to the same China" and "conspiracy to reunify" contained in the "1992 Consensus", and closely uniting the Chinese people on both sides of the strait to work together to create a fully unified time and harmony Only in this way will the strong connection between national rejuvenation and national unity and its institutionalization become possible.
(Finish)
About the Author:
Tian Feilong, a native of Lianshui, Jiangsu, is an associate professor at the Advanced Research Institute/School of Law, Beihang University, executive director of the One Country, Two Systems Legal Research Center, a master tutor, and a doctor of law from Peking University.
He was a short-term visiting scholar at the Federal Institute of Fribourg University in Switzerland (2009.8-2009.9) and served as a Leslie Wright Fellow of the Law School of the University of Hong Kong (2014-2015).
The main research directions are Constitutional and Political Theory, Comparative Law and Global Governance, and Basic Law of Hong Kong and Macau.
He is also a director of the National Hong Kong and Macao Research Association and a director of the Law Research Association on Cross-Strait Relations.
He has translated 12 books including "Introduction to Federalism" and "Constitutional Views of the American Revolution".
He is the author of 8 monographs including "The Road to Rule of Law in Modern China", "Observation on Hong Kong Political Reform", "The Chinese Way of Political Constitution" and "Hong Kong New Order".
Young academic representatives, government consultants and public columnists of the domestic "political constitutional science" genre have established good academic interaction with overseas think tanks and authoritative media, and have high academic and social influence at home and abroad.
Selected into the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Youth Top Talent Program (Category A, 2019) and Beijing National Governance Young Talent Program (The Fourth Batch, 2019).