Tsai Ing-wen Must Explain Why She Opposes the 1992 Consensus

Tsai Ing-wen Must Explain Why She Opposes the 1992 Consensus
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 9, 2015

Executive Summary: The logic of the 1992 consensus is actually quite simple. If one advocates Taiwan independence, then one opposes the 1992 Consensus. It one opposes Taiwan independence, then one supports the 1992 consensus. The 1992 consensus has become a label. This has enabled Tsai Ing-wen to bob and weave. Why not drop the 1992 consensus label altogether and just ask Tsai Ing-wen directly: Why are you opposed to one China, difference interpretations. Why do you champion Taiwan independence? Surely she owes the next generation a reason why or why not.

Full Text Below:

In 2012, Tsai Ing-wen refused to recognize the 1992 consensus and lost the election. This newspaper predicted back then that the battle in 2016 would still be over the 1992 consensus. Our prediction has now proven correct.

Over the past three years, Tsai Ing-wen has consistently opposed the 1992 consensus. But she has never fully explained the reasons why. One. In 2013, she declared there is no such thing as a "1992 consensus". Two. This year, she no longer denied its existence, but she dismissed the 1992 consensus as nothing more than a “label”. Three. She now claims the 1992 consensus is merely a "KMT/CCP consensus". In fact, the 1992 consensus has become a trilateral Taipei/Washington/Beijing consensus. In fact, even if were only a "KMT/CCP consensus" she would have no reason to object. After all, Tsai Ing-wen has already said she "unconditionally accepts" ECFA. Why hasn't she denounced that as a "KMT/CCP consensus"? In short, rather than bobbing and weaving, shouldn't Tsai Ing-wen explain why she opposes the 1992 Consensus?

Tsai Ing-wen said the 1992 consensus is merely a “label” and a KMT/CCP consensus. But she has never explained what she thinks the 1992 consensus contains and what exactly she thinks it means. She refuses to say what the 1992 consensus is, and why she is opposed to it. Yet she persists in waving an anti-1992 consensus banner while running for Republic of China president. Is this not the height of absurdity?

We should first clarify what the 1992 consensus is. In 1991 and early 1992, the SEF and ARATS clashed over the one China principle. When President Lee convened the National Unification Council. On August 1, 2003 he published his “Concerning the Meaning of One China”. Namely, "Both sides adhere to the One China Principle, but the two sides interpret it differently”. Later, in late October, the SEF proposed further talks in Hong Kong. The two associations verbally agreed over the one China principle. Our side openly endorsed the August 1 resolution on the one-China principle. We said "We think one China means the Republic of China established in 1912". ARATS did not comment on the August 1 resolution. But on November 16, it referred to the SEF's "verbal declaration of support for the one China principle with different interpretations". It replied officially, indicating "I fully respect and accept your proposal", and said that negotiations over transactional matters do not involve any “one China” political implications. Following this agreement, the two associations quickly arranged for Koo-Wang talks in Singapore in February 1993, to break the ice. As a result, so-called "one China, different interpretations" or "different interpretations of one China" commonly became known as "one China, different interpretations". When Eric Chu discussed the 1992 consensus during the Chu/Xi meeting, he stuck to this framework.

In 2005, after Lien Chan met with Hu Jingtao, the two sides used the term 1992 consensus. Beijing stressed the one China framework. The Kuomintang and the Ma government stressed one China, different interpretations. Next, the Ma government interpreted the 1992 consensus under the framework of the ROC Constitution, as "no reunification (within his term), no Taiwan independence, and no use of force". He too adhered to the one China definition and one China, different interpretations. These were contained within the August 1 resolution, the 1992 consensus, and the Republic of China's one China Constitution. At first Beijing emphasized only the one China framework. But with changes in the cross-Strait situation, it began linking the 1992 consensus to opposition to Taiwan independence. Obviously this was directed at the DPP. The Ma government meanwhile, bases its conduct on the ROC Constitution and the August 1 resolution. It upholds its “no Taiwan independence” declaration.

As we can see, the 1992 consensus underwent three stages of development. One. During the Lee Teng-hui era, SEF talks led by the National Unification Council, established the content of one China, different interpretations. Two. One China, different interpretations is based on the ROC Constitution. Three. In accordance with the one China constitution, the Republic of China rulers oppose Taiwan independence. These are the implications of the 1992 Consensus.

To summarize, the 1992 consensus makes two key points. One. One China, different interpretations. Two. Opposition to Taiwan independence. If Tsai Ing-wen supports one China, different interpretations, she has no reason to oppose the 1992 consensus. If Tsai Ing-wen does not advocate Taiwan independence, she has no reason to oppose the 1992 consensus. People wonder how Tsai Ing-wen can demand Taiwan independence while defending the status quo. Oddly enough, Tsai Ing-wen has never explicitly advocated Taiwan independence. Not has she explicitly opposed a constitutionally-based one China. Tsai Ing-wen is afraid to say she advocates Taiwan independence,. She is also afraid to say she opposes Taiwan independence. The contradictions and confusions therein are the reason she cannot bring herself to say why she opposes the 1992 consensus.

So far, Tsai Ing-wen has said little about her cross-strait policy. She has openly announced only two principles. One. She opposes the 1992 consensus. Two. She hopes to maintain the cross-Strait status quo. But she refuses to say what the status quo is. Everyone argues over the 1992 consensus. But all they argue over is strawmen erected by Tsai Ing-wen. She evades the serious implications of the 1992 consensus: one China, different interpretations, and opposition to Taiwan independence. That is why she avoids saying why she opposes a constitutionally based one China and supports Taiwan independence.

The logic of the 1992 consensus is actually quite simple. If one advocates Taiwan independence, then one opposes the 1992 Consensus. It one opposes Taiwan independence, then one supports the 1992 consensus. The 1992 consensus has become a label. This has enabled Tsai Ing-wen to bob and weave. Why not drop the 1992 consensus label altogether and just ask Tsai Ing-wen directly: Why are you opposed to one China, difference interpretations. Why do you champion Taiwan independence? Surely she owes the next generation a reason why or why not.

蔡英文應明確交代反對九二共識的理由
2015-05-09 聯合報

二○一二年，蔡英文因否定「九二共識」而輸掉大選，本報當時即預言，二○一六大選的決戰議題仍將是「九二共識」。如今此說已可確立。

三年多來，蔡英文始終反對九二共識，但從未明白交代過她反對的理由。一、二○一二年，她說，根本沒有「九二共識」。二、今年，她不再否認，卻說九二共識只是「標籤」。三、接著，她又說，九二共識只是「國共共識」。且不說九二共識如今不啻已成「台／美／中」三邊共識，即便只是「國共共識」，如果正確，似亦無反對的理由，蔡英文也曾「概括承受」過ＥＣＦＡ，怎不說那是「國共共識」？總之，左閃右躲，蔡英文迄今未交代她反對九二共識的理由何在？

其實，蔡英文除了說九二共識是標籤及國共共識外，也從未交代過她所認知的九二共識究竟是何內容？她不說九二共識是什麼，又不說反對九二共識是何理由，竟要打著「反對九二共識」的旗號競選中華民國總統，豈不荒唐加恐怖？

且先弄清「九二共識」究為何物。一九九一年及九二年前期，海基、海協兩會因「一個中國原則」觸礁。李登輝總統召集國統會，於九二年八月一日公布我方所主張的《關於「一個中國」的涵義》指出：「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。」後來，海基會在十月下旬的香港會談中進一步主張，「兩會各自以口頭聲明方式表述一個中國原則」，且言明我方是以「八一決議」表述一中原則，即「我方認為『一個中國』應指一九一二年成立至今之中華民國」。對此，海協會未就「八一決議」作出評論，但在十一月十六日對海基會所提「以口頭聲明方式各自表述一個中國原則」，正式回函表示「我會充分尊重並接受貴會的建議」，並謂事務性協商不涉「一個中國」的政治意涵。經此協議，兩會迅速安排一九九三年二月的新加坡辜汪破冰會談。此即所謂「一個中國／各自表述」或「各自表述／一個中國」，亦即通稱的「一中各表」。朱立倫此次在朱習會中對九二共識的論述，並未脫軼這個範疇。

二○○五年連胡會後，兩岸在使用「九二共識」一詞時，北京強調「一中框架」，國民黨及馬政府則強調「一中各表」。接下來，馬政府將九二共識演繹為，在中華民國憲法架構下的「不統（任內不談判統一）／不獨／不武」，也未超出「八一決議」所指的「一中定義」及「一中各表」，且將九二共識與中華民國的「一中憲法」作了連結。北京方面，剛開始僅強框架」，但隨著兩岸情勢變遷，遂將「九二共識」與「反對台獨」連結，這當然是針對民進黨而來。馬政府則基於中華民國憲法及「八一決議」的規範，維持「不獨」的宣示。

由此可知，九二共識的原型及發展有三大內容：一、在李登輝政府時代，由海基會談判，國統會主導，確立了「一中各表」的內容。二、「一中各表」係以中華民國憲法為依據。三、根據一中憲法，中華民國執政者反對台獨，此為九二共識當然的引申之義。

綜上所述，九二共識有兩大要點。一、一中各表；二、反對台獨。如果蔡英文支持「一中各表」，她就沒有反對「九二共識」的理由；如果蔡英文不主張台獨，她也沒有反對「九二共識」的理由。但奇怪的是，當各方質疑蔡英文若堅持台獨如何還能「維持現狀」時，蔡英文卻從未表示過她主張台獨，也從未表示過她反對憲法一中。蔡英文不敢說主張台獨，也不敢說反對台獨，此中的矛盾與錯亂，正是她說不出「反對九二共識」理由何在的原因。

迄至當下，蔡英文對於她的兩岸政策，只公開宣示了兩大原則：一、反對九二共識。二、維持兩岸現狀。但她沒說什麼是「現狀」，也不說九二共識是什麼？大家為九二共識吵來吵去，卻吵的都是被蔡英文淘空內容的稻草人。她遮蓋了「九二共識」在「一中各表」及「反對台獨」上的嚴肅意義，因此也迴避了回答她為何反對憲法一中及支持台獨的理由。

九二共識的道理其實十分簡單。主張台獨，就反對九二共識；反對台獨，就支持九二共識。九二共識的標籤化，使蔡英文有了閃避與操作的空間，因此何妨放下「九二共識」四字的標籤，直接問蔡英文：妳為何反對一中各表，及為何主張台獨？這總該給國人交代一個理由吧。