1992 Consensus: Seeking Common Ground Requires One China, Different Interpretations

1992 Consensus: Seeking Common Ground Requires One China, Different Interpretations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 11, 2011

Since the beginning of this year, Beijing officials in charge of Taiwan affairs have repeatedly stressed the 1992 Consensus. They have done so on every occasion pertaining to cross-Strait relations. They have made subtle but highly significant alterations to the meaning of the 1992 Consensus. Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi, for example, said that "The essence of the 1992 Consensus is the search for common ground."

The 1992 Consensus enables both Taipei and Beijing to assert their own position. Taipei speaks of "One China, Different Interpretations." Beijing speaks of "Different Interpretations of One China." Beijing stresses "seeking common ground." Taipei stresses "honoring the differences." Over the past three years, when referring to 1992 Consensus, the Beijing authorities have often emphasized the One China Principle. They have mentioned the 1992 Consensus in connection with "seeking common ground, while honoring the differences." But until recently they have never said that "The essence of the 1992 Consensus is the search for common ground." Now however, they are. Now Beijing is saying that "The essence of the 1992 Consensus is the search for common ground." Since Taipei has long maintained that the 1992 Consensus means One China, Different Interpretations, the two sides have narrowed the the gap separating them considerably.

Beijing's move has important implications. If the DPP wins the presidential election, it may well repudiate the 1992 Consensus. Beijing might be making a preemptive move. On the other hand, Beijing might be fine-tuning its position. It might be making a subtle shift, from "seeking common ground," to "honoring the differences." It might be making a subtle shift, from the One China Principle, to One China, Different Interpretations. Beijing's shift might make the 1992 Consensus more balanced and stable. It might make the 1992 Consensus more acceptable to the majority on Taiwan. This in turn, might establish a more secure framework for the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, one that the Democratic Progressive Party would find more difficult to overturn.

On January 13 of this year, ARATS chairman Chen Yunlin said, "If one day opposition to Taiwan independence evaporates, if the 1992 Consensus evaporates, we might have to rethink everything." This was the first time Beijing handed the DPP an ultimatum. Chen Yunlin's remarks have since become the central theme of Beijing's Taiwan policy. On March 25, Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi said "Relations between the two sides are good. This is a reflection of the One China Principle within the 1992 Consensus. The two sides may have different interpretations of the meaning of One China. Nevertheless we can seek common common ground. This is the essence of the 1992 Consensus." At one time, Beijing maintained that the essence of the 1992 Consensus was the One China Principle. Today, Beijing maintains that the essence of the 1992 Consensus is "the search for common ground." This shift may be subtle, but it is highly significant.

Wang Yi's remarks were published on March 26, the third anniversary of the Bush/Hu hotline conversation in 2008. Five days after Ma Ying-jeou was elected president, President Hu Jintao called President George W. Bush on the hotline. Hu said that "Mainland China and Taiwan will resume negotiations on the basis of the 1992 Consensus. This means that both sides will acknowledge that there is only one China. But they will agree to define it their own way." In fact, Hu's remarks constituted an example of "seeking common ground." They constituted an example of "One China, Different Interpretations." At at the time, they appeared only in the Xinhua News Agency's English language edition, and not the Chinese language edition. Today, Wang Yi is merely restating Hu Jintao's position during the Bush/Hu hotline conversation. In effect, the Chinese language edition has been published after a three year delay.

At a deeper level, Wang Yi's remarks tell us that Beijing has already accepted Taipei's take on the 1992 Consensus. Beijing has already accepted Taipei's One China, Different Interpretations position. Many years ago, Taipei maintained that "The two sides of the Strait adhere to the principle of One China. But they differ on the meaning of that One China." This was the meaning of One China, Different Interpretations. Beijing said it "adhered to the One China Principle" and "refrained from discussing the political meaning of One China." This was the meaning of Different Interpretations of One China. Wang Yi's remarks on March 25 show that Beijing has already accepted Taipei's take on the 1992 Consensus, which the Ma administration adheres to even today. Wang Yi's remarks stress "the seeking of common ground." The subtext is "One China, Different Interpretations." Wang Yi spoke on March 25. Since then, high-ranking officials in Beijing have addressed the 1992 Consensus on several occasions. They have all mentioned "seeking common ground." The most recent example was Chairman Jia Qinglin of the CPPCC National Committee. During the KMT/CCP Forum he said that as long as we have "opposition to Taiwan independence," and the "1992 Consensus" as a political base, can we shelve disputes and seek common ground.

When cross-Strait relations reach a certain stage, the two sides must "honor the differences." Otherwise they cannot "seek common ground." In the past, Beijing repudiated the Republic of China. This made it impossible for the two sides to "honor the differences." But if the Republic of China cannot be upheld and affirmed even on Taiwan, how can we expect the public on Taiwan and the Mainland to "seek common ground?" If this editorial has anything to contribute, it is the following. The Beijing authorities have already shifted from the One China Principle to "seeking common ground." They have already shifted from "seeking common ground" to "One China, Different Interpretations." They have done so because they must honor the differences implied by One China, Different Interpretations. Unless they do so, they cannot seek the common ground implied by the One China Principle. Unless they do so, it will be difficult to improve cross-Strait relations by reasonable means. In conclusion, we would like to reiterate this newspaper's "glass theory."

The glass theory states that the Republic of China is a glass. Taiwan is the water within the glass. As long as the glass remains intact, the water can go nowhere. Once the glass is shattered, the water will be scattered everywhere.

九二共識要求同存異就要一中各表
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.05.11

自今年初以來，北京當局的各階層涉台官員，在重要場合，每論及兩岸關係，幾乎皆會強調九二共識，且最近又對九二共識的內涵有了微妙且重大的調整，顯示在國台辦主任王毅稱「求同存異是九二共識的精髓所在」。

九二共識各說各話。台北「一中各表」，北京「各表一中」；北京強調「求同」，台北強調「存異」。在過去三年，北京當局在提及九二共識時，往往只是強調其「一個中國的原則」；雖偶亦將「求同存異」與「九二共識」連結，但未曾強調九二共識的「精髓所在」即是「求同存異」。如今，北京說「九二共識，求同存異」，台北說「九二共識，一中各表」，雙方的距離拉近了不少。

北京的動作，一方面是對民進黨若贏得總統大選可能否棄九二共識而預先攤牌，另一方面則可視為是從「求同」微調，轉向「存異」，亦即從「一中原則」微調，轉向「一中各表」，可使九二共識成為更平衡、更穩固，且更可能被多數台灣人民接受及支持的兩岸和平發展框架，亦即更難被民進黨推翻。

今年一月十三日，海協會會長陳雲林說：「如果有一天反對台獨沒了，九二共識沒了，可能一切都要重新考慮。」這是北京首次對民進黨預作攤牌，而陳雲林的談話隨即成為北京涉台論述主調。至三月二十五日，北京國台辦主任王毅又稱：「兩岸目前的良好關係，是體現一個中國的九二共識；儘管對於一個中國的涵義，雙方認知不同，但我們可以求同存異，這是九二共識的精髓所在。」其實，在此以前，北京認為九二共識的「精髓」應是「一中原則」；如今稱「求同存異」為「九二共識的精髓所在」，這樣的調整當然是微妙且重大。

王毅的這段談話在三月二十六日見報，正是布胡熱線論及同一話題的三周年。2008年三月二十六日，馬英九當選總統五天後，胡錦濤主席在熱線中對小布希總統說：「中國大陸和台灣將在九二共識的基礎上恢復談判，意即雙方承認只有一個中國，但同意對其定義各自表述。」胡錦濤的談話，其實就是「求同存異」，也就是「一中各表」。但當時只見諸新華社的英文稿，未見諸中文稿；如今，王毅的談話其實是複誦布胡熱線的胡錦濤談話，可以視為延遲在三年後公布的中文稿。

王毅談話的更深一層意義，是在顯示北京已經接受台北方面在1992年當年對「一中各表」的立場。當年，台北方面主張：「海峽兩岸均堅持『一個中國』之原則，但雙方所賦予之涵義有所不同。」此即「一中各表」。北京方面則稱：「堅持一個中國原則，不討論『一個中國』的政治涵義。」此即「各表一中」。顯然，三月二十五日王毅的談話，已經接受了台北方面在1992年所表達而至今馬政府仍然持守的觀點；主旨在「求同存異」，潛台詞則是「一中各表」。自王毅三月二十五日談話後，北京重要官員在重要場合談及九二共識，必與「求同存異」連結。最近的例證是全國政協主席賈慶林在「國共論壇」上說：有了「反台獨」和「九二共識」兩項政治基礎，才能擱置爭議，求同存異。

兩岸關係，在相當階段中，若不能「存異」，即不可能「求同」。北京過去否定「中華民國」，使兩岸雙方不能「存異」；然若台灣內部連「中華民國」也不能維持及鞏固，豈能奢望台灣人民與對岸的「中國」去「求同」？倘若本文的分析尚有可供思索之處，北京當局既已從「一中原則」移向「求同存異」，且再試從「求同存異」邁向「一中各表」。因為，不存「一中各表」之「異」，即無可能求「一中原則」之「同」，兩岸關係亦難以經合理的過程到改善之目的。最後，再重申本報所主張的兩岸思維「杯子理論」。

杯子理論說：中華民國是杯，台灣是水；杯在水在，杯破水覆。