1992 Consensus: Master Switch for Cross-Strait Relations

1992 Consensus: Master Switch for Cross-Strait Relations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 13, 2011

Summary: The election is closely fought, Tomorrow the polls will open. Some voters will vote to keep the master switch on. Other voters will vote to turn it off. Nevertheless we would like to make this solemn 11th hour appeal, Tomorrow, no matter who is elected, he or she must not turn the 1992 Consensus master switch off. Some voters may not realize what is at stake, But if those in power allow the lights to go out, if they allow the cross-Strait meeting hall to descend into darkness, political and economic disaster will befall the nation, within and without.

Full Text Below:

Some say the 1992 Consensus is the master switch for cross-Strait relations.

Tomorrow is election day. The people will decide whether this master switch remains on, or is turned off.

The survival and prosperity of the Republic of China involves two fundamental issues. The first is allegiance to the nation and its constitution. The second is cross-Strait relations.

Consider the 1992 Consensus from the perspective of allegiance to the nation and its constitution. The 1992 Consensus upholds the Republic of China Constitution. Within, it reaffirms allegiance to the Republic of China. Without, it upholds the Republic of China's legal system. In other words, it rejects Taiwan independence.

Now consider the 1992 Consensus from the perspective of cross-Strait relations, or "one China, different interpretations." As mentioned earlier, the 1992 Consensus upholds the Republic of China Constitution, both internally and externally. The same is true for cross-Strait relations. The expression "one China, different interpretations," merely means that "[There is one China, but] we consider one China to be the Republic of China, while you consider one China to be the People's Republic of China." What the Ma administration calls "one China, different interpretations," is what Beijing calls "seeking common ground while shelving differences."

Repudiating the 1992 Consensus within amounts to repudiating the Constitution of the Republic of China. Repudiating the 1992 Consensus without amounts to turning one's back on the Republic of China's system of law. Repudiation of the 1992 Consensus amounts to abandoning our "one China, different interpretations" position on cross-Strait relations.

Some critics say the 1992 Consensus is the master switch for cross-Strait relations. Think of cross-Strait relations as a magnificent meeting hall. The lights are blazing. Row upon row of crystal chandeliers send out dazzling rays of light. These points of light include ECFA, Mainland tourists visiting Taiwan, direct airline flights, the diplomatic truce, visa-free treatment from 124 nations, over 25 billion dollars in pineapple cake sales, a mania for milkfish, the Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement, the Taiwan-Hong Kong Air Pact, and the right to host the World University Games. These dazzling light fixtures have filled the hall with light.

This glowing scene is all made possible by the 1992 Consensus, by one China, different interpretations. The 1992 Consensus is the master switch for every one of these light fixtures. This is plain for all to see. In May 2008, the 1992 Consensus master switch was turned on. One light fixture after another began giving off light. Yet today, during the current presidential election, the most critical issue, incredibly, is whether to throw this master switch to the off position. The most critical argument, incredibly, is whether these brilliant lights will continue to shine after the master switch has been turned off.

Ma Ying-jeou proposes to keep 1992 Consensus master switch in the on position, so that all the lights continue to shine. He even proposes to increase the number of light sources. Tsai Ing-wen, on the other hand, insists on turning the 1992 Consensus master switch off, even though she still wants the lights to remain on!

For example, Tsai Ing-wen obstinately refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus. But at the same time, she wants to retain ECFA. She wants to turn the master switch off, yet expects the crystal chandeliers to remain on. Anyone in his or her right mind knows this is impossible.

Today is the eve of election day. Allow us to once again invoke Chiang Pai-li's sage observation: Taiwan's political path must be congruent with its economic path. If the two remain congruent, we will remain strong. If the two become less congruent, we will become weak. If the two become totally incongruent, we will wither and die. The 1992 Consensus and one China, different interpretations equals congruency, Repudiation of the 1992 Consensus and Taiwan independence equals total incongruency.

The 1992 Consensus is not merely "cross-Strait policy." It is a comprehensive political and economic strategy for the nation's future. Therefore when evaluating the 1992 Consensus, we must look at more than ECFA and other economic and trade benefits. We must look at the cross-Strait peace dividend and the friendly environment it makes possible. We must look at the synergy created by the larger political and economic picture, within and witihout. The 1992 Consensus made possible the diplomatic truce. It benefited the nation as a whole. The 1992 Consensus led to improved Taipei/Washington/Beijing relations. The 1992 Consensus led to improved Taipei/Tokyo/Beijing relations. The 1992 Consensus led to the Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement. The 1992 Consensus led to visa-free treatment from 124 nations.

The 1992 Consensus is not merely the master switch for cross-Strait relations. The quality of cross-Strait relations affects the larger political and economic picture, within and without, for better or worse. The 1992 Consensus is also a catalyst for the nation's overall political and economic well-being, within and without.

If we fail to get a handle on cross-Strait relations, we cannot get a handle on the larger political and economic situation, within and without. Still less can we put our nation's affairs in order. Therefore flipping off the 1992 Consensus master switch off will have catastrophic consequences for the nation's overall political and economic well-being, within and without, The impact will hardly be limited to cross-Strait relations.

The upcoming presidential election is a choice between supporting the 1992 Consensus and opposing the 1992 Consensus. The ballots cast will determine whether the 1992 Consensus master switch remains on, or gets turned off. The voters can choose to keep it in the on position, They can also choose to switch it off.

The election is closely fought, Tomorrow the polls will open. Some voters will vote to keep the master switch on. Other voters will vote to turn it off. Nevertheless we would like to make this solemn 11th hour appeal, Tomorrow, no matter who is elected, he or she must not turn the 1992 Consensus master switch off.

Some voters may not realize what is at stake, But if those in power allow the lights to go out, if they allow the cross-Strait meeting hall to descend into darkness, political and economic disaster will befall the nation, within and without.

ON？OFF？九二共識是兩岸關係總開關 【聯合報╱社論】 2012.01.13

有人說，「九二共識」是兩岸關係的總開關。

明天投票，全民將決定這個總開關的ＯＮ或ＯＦＦ！

中華民國的生存發展，有兩大基本課題：一、國憲認同；二、兩岸關係。

九二共識，就國憲認同言，就是護持中華民國憲法，對內維持中華民國的認同，對外持守中華民國的法統；也就是不贊同台獨路線。

九二共識，對兩岸關係言，即是「一中各表」。如前所述，對內對外皆持守中華民國憲法，因此在兩岸關係上亦然；所謂「一中各表」，就是「我是中華民國／你是中華人民共和國」；馬政府所稱「一中各表」，在北京稱作「求同存異」。

否定九二共識，即是對內否定中華民國的國憲認同，對外背離中華民國的法統，對兩岸否棄「一中各表」的立場表述。

有評論者說：九二共識是兩岸關係的總開關。這個比喻，是將兩岸關係喻為一座華麗的大廳堂；此刻正是華燈初上之際，一盞盞燈具綻放出熠熠光華；這些燈具，如ＥＣＦＡ、陸客來台、直航、外交休兵、一二四國免簽證、鳳梨酥產值逾二五○億、虱目魚狂賣、台日投資協議、台港新航約、取得世界大學運動會主辦權等等，將這一座廳堂映照得光燦奪目。

此一晶瑩璀璨的場景，一切皆因「九二共識／一中各表」而生；亦即，「九二共識」是這所有燈具的總開關。有目共睹，自二○○八年五月「九二共識」這個總開關撥到了ＯＮ的位置以後，一盞接一盞的華燈相繼點亮；但是，如今在這次總統大選中，最關鍵的一個爭論卻是：要不要把這個總開關撥至ＯＦＦ，以驗證這些璀璨的燈具會不會全盤熄滅？

馬英九主張，讓九二共識這個總開關維持在ＯＮ，以使所有燈具持續發光，且還可添置更多燈具；蔡英文則主張將九二共識這個總開關撥至ＯＦＦ，但她似又不想讓那些燈具熄滅。

例如，蔡英文說，她否定九二共識，但她要ＥＣＦＡ的運作延續下去。這樣的思考，就不啻是要ＯＦＦ掉總開關，卻仍要水晶燈繼續熠熠發光。用膝蓋想，也知這是不可能之事。

投票前夕，我們願再引改寫的蔣百里名句指出：台灣的政治路線必須與經濟路線合轍；兩者相合則強，相離則弱，相背則亡。「九二共識／一中各表」就是相合，「否定九二共識／台獨」就是相離相背。

「九二共識」不只是一個「兩岸政策」；它其實是一個「全方位」的「國家政經大戰略」。因此，評價「九二共識」，不能只見到「ＥＣＦＡ」等經貿交流的利益，而更應看到「九二共識」所創造的兩岸和平紅利及友善環境，對國家內外整體政經情勢所發生的綜合效益（synergy）。例如，因「九二共識」的外交休兵，對國家所產生的利益；又如，因「九二共識」而使台美中、台日中關係的巨幅改善；再如，因「九二共識」而帶來台日投資協議及一二四國免簽證等外交利益……。

所以，九二共識不但是兩岸關係的總開關；由於兩岸關係的品質必會牽動國家內外整體政經情勢的吉凶利害，所以「九二共識」其實也可謂是國家整體內外政經情勢的變壓器。

兩岸關係搞不定，國家整體內外政經情勢就無法穩定，更不易理順；所以，ＯＦＦ了九二共識，必使國家整體內外政經情勢皆受重大衝擊，其影響豈止在兩岸而已。

此次總統大選的本質，即是在「支持九二共識」及「否定九二共識」之間的抉擇。每一張選票皆可觸及「九二共識」這個總開關，選民可以讓它仍然維持在ＯＮ的位置，也可撳下ＯＦＦ。

選情緊繃，明天開票，有些選民仍主張ＯＮ，但也有些選民會按ＯＦＦ。但是，我們願在這最後關頭仍要鄭重呼籲，明天無論是誰當選，都不可對「九二共識」這個總開關按下ＯＦＦ之鍵。

有些選民或許不知其中利害，但主政者若面對一個燈熄光滅、烏漆墨黑的兩岸廳堂，則國家整體內外的政經情勢必不堪設想。