|
Ma’s Message to Beijing: “No One China with Respective Interpretations, No 1992 Consensus”
|
 2020/07/06
Browse：296
|
Ma’s Message to Beijing: “No One China with Respective Interpretations, No 1992 Consensus”
Source: UDN
July 6, 2020
With regard to the disputes over the 1992 Consensus, former President Ma Ying-jeou addressed to the Mainland yesterday, saying that the complete version of the 1992 Consensus must include one China with respective interpretations, adding that “without respective interpretations, there is no one China, and that without one China with respective interpretations, there is no 1992 Consensus.”
Ma went on to say that the 1992 Consensus and one China with respective interpretations were the most circumlocutory way to make the Mainland “face squarely the existence of the Republic of China.”
With regard to this important matter, we transcribe below the pertinent part of the PRC Central People’s Government’s news release on March 27, 2008, carrying a hotline telephone conversation between Hu Jintao and George W. Bush:
“He [Hu] said it is China’s consistent stand that the Chinese Mainland and Taiwan should restore consultation and talks on the basis of ‘the 1992 Consensus,’ which sees both sides recognize there is only one China, but agree to differ on its definition.”
With regard to Ma’s statements, an unnamed Mainland scholar stated yesterday that “we can see that under tremendous pressure of the vox populi in Taiwan, the KMT has lost its strategic focus.”
The scholar pointed out that in the very beginning, the 1992 Consensus was an outcome of both sides across the Taiwan Strait “seeking commonalities and shelving differences in cross-Strait ties.” The same source explained that the shared perception between the two sides of the Strait was “both sides adhering to the one China principle,” while the difference lay in “both sides having different perceptions of the meaning of one China,” meaning that the Mainland side didn’t deny a perception difference existed between both sides.
Although the scholar stated that how to interpret this difference between both sides was the right of Taiwan, he stressed that this perception difference could not become the premise of the shared perception of the one China principle.
|
Attachment
: none
|
|