President Ma Ying-jeou personally convened a press conference on the afternoon of August 28 to discuss the so-called "1992 Consensus." Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), Deputy Secretary-General to the President Kao Lang (高朗), Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Vice Chairman and Secretary-General Kao Koong-lian (高孔廉), and Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Deputy Minister Te-Shun Liu (劉德勳) were among those present for the press conference.
President Ma spoke in Mandarin, Taiwanese, and Hakka in stressing that "the ROC is our nation, Taiwan is our home, and the 'blue, white, and crimson' is our national flag." The president said that he is confident that clarifying this standpoint will help to forge unity and harmony in Taiwan, and will facilitate the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.
Below are the remarks made by President Ma in their entirety.
There has been much talk recently about the "1992 Consensus" and the "Taiwan Consensus." I was involved in work associated with the talks that led to the "1992 Consensus" when I was Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) vice chairman. I invited Vice Chairman Kao of the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) to attend today's press conference, as Vice Chairman Kao also was a vice chairman of the MAC at that time.
I would like to turn to the history of the "1992 Consensus." The SEF and mainland China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) were established in 1992, initially to address the issue of verification of documents. At that time, the mainland wanted us to sign an agreement that both sides agreed to a "one China" principle, but our side had a different opinion on this issue. There was no concrete resolution of this issue, so the two sides decided to engage in formal negotiations in Hong Kong in October of that year. On August 1, the National Unification Council, which was headed by then President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), held a meeting, during which a consensus was reached as to the meaning of "one China." They felt that we needed to set forth our position and create a bottom line on the issue of "one China," as this issue would arise in the upcoming talks with mainland China, and they came to the decision that "one China" referred to the Republic of China that has been in existence since 1912, and that its sovereignty included all of China, but that its authority to govern was limited to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. This was the resolution that was passed at a meeting of the National Unification Council on August 1, 1992 held at the Presidential Office Building and presided over by then President Lee, who also served as the Council's chairperson. I was present at that meeting, which was also attended by Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝), who was then the MAC chairman, in his capacity as a member of the Council.
After this resolution was adopted, the definition of "ROC" set forth therein served as the basis for our discussions in Hong Kong with mainland China when the issue of "one China" was broached. Ultimately, no agreement was reached and the two sides left Hong Kong at the time without a consensus. However, on November 3 the SEF issued a press release and simultaneously sent a letter to the ARATS via fax that explained its stance on "one China, saying that having obtained the approval of our competent authority, we accept that each side can have its own verbal interpretation (regarding the 'one-China' issue). Thirteen days later, on November 16, the ARATS replied in a letter as follows: The formal notification issued by the SEF on November 3 shows that the Taiwan side has agreed that each side can have its own interpretation via verbal declaration. The ARATS fully respects and accepts the suggestion by the SEF, and on November 3 phoned Mr. Chen Rong-jye (陳榮傑) to inform him of this stance. Mr. Chen was then secretary-general of the SEF. This is how the two sides came to agree to accept the "one China, respective interpretations" principle 19 years ago.
Therefore, the meaning of the "1992 Consensus" is quite clear—"one China, respective interpretations." This is a consensus that was reached between the two sides. For us, the so-called "one China" is of course the Republic of China, since at that time prior to the initiation of discussions with mainland China, the National Unification Council specially convened a meeting and confirmed that the so-called "one China" is the "Republic of China that was established in 1912 and exists to this day." This fact is extremely clear.
Some might comment that although our side was clear as to the meaning, we cannot be sure that mainland China accepted this arrangement. By examining the letters that were sent between the two sides, we can be clear that authorities on the other side fully respected and accepted our stance. Let's also take a look back at the situation three years ago. I was elected president on March 22, 2008, and on March 26 then US President George W. Bush and General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Hu Jintao spoke over the phone. During the conversation, Mr. Hu remarked that mainland China and Taiwan should resume negotiations based on the foundation of the "1992 Consensus." Under the "1992 Consensus," Mr. Hu explained to then President Bush, both sides acknowledged that there is only one China, but that the definition of it on each side is different. Mr. Hu then described the situation in Chinese and the Xinhua News Agency also released an English press release to this effect. I even remember that this news was the top story in Taiwan's United Daily News.
Not long after I was inaugurated on May 20 of that year, the SEF elected a new chairman and the organization sent a letter to its mainland counterpart stating that it was willing to resume negotiations based on the foundation of the "1992 Consensus." The ARATS also replied that it was willing to do the same. Consequently, the two sides not only accepted the consensus, but were consistent on the content of it. Mr. Hu at the time clearly expressed the state of affairs. As a result, the "1992 Consensus" that we take today as the basis for negotiations between the two sides, does not harm the sovereignty of the ROC, and in fact enables the sovereignty of the ROC to play an important role in the process of reaching agreements between the two sides. The consensus echoes the status between the two sides set forth in the ROC Constitution and it clearly corroborates our standpoint that "one China" refers to the Republic of China.
It is the "1992 Consensus" that has enabled the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to put aside their differences over the issue of sovereignty for the time being. Upon this basis the two sides have been willing, despite the lack of consensus on the issue of sovereignty, to shelve disputes and move ahead with bilateral talks. This is the most important reason why the two sides over the past three years have been able to complete 15 agreements; this is the basis upon which negotiations are made possible. Nineteen years ago it was precisely because of the "1992 Consensus" that the Koo-Wang talks (between the respective heads of the SEF and ARATS) could be held in Singapore, and again in mainland China the following year, and why four agreements resulted from those talks. Therefore, everyone should understand the enormously important role that the "1992 Consensus" has played in negotiations and cooperation between the two sides.
We have recently seen Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) repeatedly refer to the "Taiwan Consensus." In fact, to understand what a consensus on Taiwan means, we must first understand the opinions of the people of Taiwan. The people of Taiwan at the present stage favor the policy of "no unification, no independence, and no use of force." That is why, before I took office as president, I advocated a policy under the framework of the ROC Constitution of maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait via this "three noes" policy. In other words, maintaining the status quo reflects the desire of the vast majority of the people in Taiwan. Since its establishment over 20 years ago, the MAC each year has carried out several surveys that clearly show only a minority of people advocate either unification or independence, while an overwhelming majority, nearly 80%, support broadly maintaining the status quo. This is the true representation of the will of the Taiwan people, and is the main basis for advocating "no unification, no independence, and no use of force." I call on Chairwoman Tsai to tell the people of Taiwan whether she advocates the "three noes" policy and whether she can communicate her opinion to the majority of the Taiwan public, which supports the "no unification, no independence, and no use of force" policy, and in particular whether she supports the "no independence" portion. Chairwoman Tsai cannot be vague or avoid this question. Rather, she must face the issue. I have been extremely clear in proclaiming that the ROC is our nation, Taiwan is our home, and the blue, white, and crimson flag is the national flag of the ROC. This is a clear fact, and it is something that I should clearly spell out.
Chairwoman Tsai once said that the ROC is a government in exile. I am unaware whether the chairwoman still believes this statement. I am aware that some people in the DPP believe that the ROC national flag cannot represent our nation. There are some political figures from the DPP who when sworn into office have not been willing to face the flag or sing the national anthem. In addition, a very small number of DPP members working as civil servants have even burned the flag. We are quite aware that some members of the DPP maintain the aforementioned attitude towards the nation, the national flag, and the Constitution. Consequently, as Taiwan faces the challenges of the future, I hope that everyone is able to truly understand that the consensus on Taiwan is precisely "no unification, no independence, and no use of force" under the framework of the ROC Constitution. Over the past three years, the government has proven that adoption of this stance can help to create greater room for Taiwan in the international community. This has not only enabled us to engage in discussions with mainland China, but also to have contacts with countries around the world. It is also because of this that we have seen incipient signs of peace emerge in the Taiwan Strait, which has helped the two sides to jointly forge peace and prosperity in the Taiwan Strait. I believe that this is the true meaning of the consensus on Taiwan. This is a consensus that enables Taiwan to enjoy peace and prosperity.
If there are some hidden concepts in the "Taiwan Consensus" proposed by Chairwomen Tsai or things that cannot be said, such as "calling for a new constitution using a different title for the nation," I believe that this is not the consensus on Taiwan accepted by the majority of the people, since it would not bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan. Consequently, I hope that Chairwoman Tsai will explain her position and bravely introduce what her "Taiwan Consensus" is. She needs to clearly state whether she supports the "no unification, no independence, and no use of force" policy, and she needs to state whether she believes Taiwan should move in the direction of peace and prosperity.
I believe that the president our people want is a president of the ROC. I love the ROC and my support for the ROC is natural. I have nothing to fear by this and I have no hesitations. I want to shout out that we love the ROC and that we love Taiwan, because the ROC is our nation, Taiwan is our home, and the blue, white, and crimson flag is our national flag. I hope that clarifying this will be a positive factor in forging unity, harmony, and the peaceful development of cross-strait relations. Thank you!
【Source: Office of the President】