The government's elaboration of its position on the so-called “1992 Consensus”
1. The "1992 Consensus" does not exist." The so-called "1992 Consensus" was a new terminology invented by Su Chi only in 2000, who believed that a consensus on the "one China with respective interpretations" was achieved at the 1992 Hong Kong meeting, and such a consensus could be called the "1992 Consensus." This was a statement that entirely ignored the facts. In reality, both sides of the Strait maintained the spirit of "putting aside disputes, acting pragmatically, and expressing mutual respect" at the Hong Kong meeting held in October 1992 in jointly negotiating the technical matters arising in the initial stage of the promotion of cross-strait exchanges. Although the "one China" issue was mentioned in the meeting, there was never any "1992 Consensus" on the so-called "one China with respective interpretations" and the "one China" principle. The issues discussed at the 1992 meeting were general and technical ones. But at the outset, China attempted to impose highly-political "one China" framework on the cross-strait negotiations. Later on, it defined and interpreted the results of the 1992 meeting of its own accord as having achieved a consensus on the "one China" principle. At the same time, under China's definition, there was no room for "respective interpretations." Since then on, the "one China" principle became the strategic framework employed by China in its Taiwan policy, and has been fully applied in every aspect in cross-strait exchanges and international activities. The "one China" principle is an extremely abstract concept, but its concrete applications have restricted Taiwan's freedom and actions in the international arena.
2. The principle that national sovereignty resides in the people is firmly upheld. Taiwan is an independent sovereign country. Any changes to the cross-strait status quo must be approved by the 23 million Taiwanese people; this is the mainstream public opinion in Taiwan, as well as the core of the government's cross-strait policy. The Taiwanese government will never accept the "one China" principle unilaterally proposed by China in defining cross-strait relations, nor will it accept that cross-strait relations will be developed in an unequal manner under such a preset framework.
3. Cross-strait relations and interaction must be conducted under the principles of parity, reciprocity, peace, and dignity. China does not respect the development of public opinion in Taiwan and has continued to restrict cross-strait interactions within the "one China" framework, to set up obstacles in negotiations, and to avoid engaging in a formal dialogue with the popularly-elected government of Taiwan; these measures do not conform to the principles of parity and dignity and violate the main trends of thought－peace and development. China has kept on paying lip service to eliminating the state of hostility through cross-strait negotiations and to signing a peace agreement with Taiwan; however, it has as usual not abandoned its military deployment and intimidation against Taiwan. China has even formulated an "anti-separation law" (ASL) and has attempted to lure Taiwan into accepting all kinds of snares designed by China with the aim of annihilating Taiwan. In the future, in accordance with the national interests and the people's wishes, the Taiwanese government will continue to positively and pragmatically push the Chinese authorities to resume mutual dialogue and negotiations with the Taiwanese government on the issues that are of concern to both sides respectively and establish a peaceful and stable framework for cross-strait interactions, so that the development of cross-strait relations will move towards normalization.