Vice Chairman Chen Ming-tong
at the June 20, 2000 Special Press Conference
after President Chen Shui-bian’s statement
His Report:
We would like to summarize the points that President Chen Shui-bian made after the first full month of taking office:
1. He emphasized his willingness to meet with (PRC President) Mr. Jiang Zemin and his wish for a quick resumption of the Koo-Wang Meeting.
2. To expound the meanings of “established basis,” the President said that any consensus reached in the previous dialogue or negotiations between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Straits (ARATS) should be a part of the “established basis.”
3. He hopes that the two sides can negotiate the “future one China” and continue developing relations. We consider that these words not only describe the status quo but also expand the sincerity and bona fide attitude he expressed on May 20, wishing joint efforts to resolve cross-strait issues.
Questions and Answers:
Q. President Chen said that all the cross-strait agreements and consensus are “established basis.” But, the Mainland side, while reacting to his May 20 speech, requested two specific promises. In addition, the two sides have different interpretations of “one China” as well as the substance of the “1992 consensus.” How will SEF and MAC manipulate to realize cross-strait talks? The President mentioned his wish for achieving exchange of visits of the highest leaders between the two sides for a hand-shaking reconciliation. What will be the measures MAC shall take?
A. The President made a special note that the “1992 consensus” was that both sides “agreed to disagree.” He believes that this is a very good consensus, and urges that everyone should sit down and have a good discussion on the meaning of “one China.” In addition, he urged the two sides to make advancement. Any consensus that has existed is the basis on which the two sides can advance positively. He also repeated his wish to meet Mr. Jiang and to resume the Koo-Wang Talks. These are the goals we hope to achieve. We want to express our good will, and we are not manipulating anything. This is the second time President Chen expressed his good will. No matter whether the other side can comprehend our bona fide intentions, we will continue to express them. The entire international environment and development are in favor of reconciliation and negotiations. The President also noted the Korean summit. “Why can the Koreans, why can’t we?” His most important urge is that no matter how wide the differences are, the two sides should sit down and have a good discussion.
Q. The President mentioned that he hoped the two sides could discuss the question of “future one China.” If this is accepted, what will be our side’s interpretation on the substance of the “one China” and what will be the negotiation strategy?
A. In his press conference, the President mentioned that a multi-partisan team would be established by the end of this month, with an aim to cement domestic consensus. We hope to deal with the substance of “one China” first from building a consensus within our society. The team will soon start operation so that various parties can engage in discussion about the meaning of “one China.” The President noted that he has emptied himself to be filled by ideas from all sides. Given his tolerance and openness, the society will soon develop a consensus, I believe.
Q. Is it that our side has not had a standardized answer to the real contents of the “one China” question?
A. I think that in a democratic and open society, an accountable government should start with building a consensus within society, not imposing an idea in a top-down fashion. After so many years of democratic development in Taiwan, the first thing that we can be proud of about ourselves is that many opinions are developing from the lower level of society to become the government’s policies.
Q. Since we want to discuss the question of “future one China,” will the cross-strait dialogues, once it is resumed, start from political issues?
A. We have been consistent that all issues can be discussed without preconditions of priority. Any discussion conducive to cross-strait peace, stability and development can be held. We have talked a lot about “three direct links” and “small three direct links.” All these can be discussed, not necessarily from political issues. We can start on something that we can reach a agreement. Those which cannot be easily settled can be put aside for the time being. A slow process could lead to smoothness. Slowly and eventually, we will be able to find answers acceptable to all.
Q. The “Three direct links” and “small three direct links” will eventually touch upon the nation’s status. Will a difference on this issue result in it being impossible for anything to be negotiated?
A. We do not rule out any subject matter for discussion. Anything can be discussed. At that time, we should get prepared. This is the basic attitude of the new government.
Q. The president said that the meaning of “one China” should be discussed by the two sides to reach a solution acceptable to both. What is the difference in this attitude from the baseline of the KMT administration?
A. The new government is calling for a negotiation with the PRC on the meaning of “one China”. In addition, we hope that our society can first develop an internal consensus. We have no intention to criticize how the previous government handled this matter. We simply hope that while our society is becoming more democratic, more open, we can have an internal consensus first and then have a discussion with the PRC. This is a bit difference from the past.
Q. To have a general view on the content and meaning of “one China,” if you don’t have a timetable for actual achieving that, will this become simply rhetoric?
A. I think “an open attitude” means that we have no fixed deadline. If consensus can be quickly developed, setting a longer time frame would be meaningless. The so-called timetable could be discussed by the multi-partisan team to see what will be a reasonable time for developing a general consensus. The new government is very active in this regard. We hope that consensus can be reached by various parties at an early date. Therefore, a time frame is not what we are looking at.
Q. You just mentioned that the SEF-ARATS agreements include everything done, written and verbally. Does this include the 1992 consensus allowing respective interpretations?
A. Yes. The President even elaborated that, “All the previous contacts, dialogues, negotiations and agreements between SEF and ARATS, as long as they are conclusive as consensus, shall be ‘established basis.’” Any one item of the above can be a part of the “established basis.” Of course, there are more, including our empathy and cultural linkage, all of which could become the basis to deal with the “future one China.” These are the good starting points we have.
Q. Can MAC act in line with the president’s policy statement to authorize SEF to send a letter to ARATS and invite Mr. Wang Daohan to visit Taiwan? There are agreements and consensus reached in 1992, 1993, and 1998, particularly in 1998, to invite Mr. Wang to visit Taiwan.
A. We must have an internal meeting with all in the policy-making system on Mainland affairs before we can make a decision. But our attitude remains unchanged. We welcome Mr. Wang to visit here any time. We are also willing to see that Mr. Koo Chen-fu pay another visit to the other side. To resume cross-strait dialogues, negotiations, and meetings is what the new government is actively pursuing.
Q. Do you predict that another Koo-Wang meeting can be held before the end of this year?
A. SEF Secretary-general Shi Hwei-yow and MAC Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen mentioned before that climate could be a major factor for the two senior gentlemen to consider. We have to make arrangements so that they can meet comfortably. Autumn could be a more pleasant and enjoyable season for both.
Q. The President mentioned about the Korean summit and its future integration model, including the confederation model. The President also mentioned that he hoped Mr. Jiang could visit Taiwan. If the two sides hold a summit, is it appropriate to include an issue like what President mentioned that there is room for the confederation model?
A. In replying to questions, President Chen said that he referred to the confederation model in meeting with Senior Presidential Advisor Sun Yuen-suan and considered Mr. Sun’s earlier views (on the confederation model) very innovative. Since we have an open society, we certainly welcome views from all sides. As long as there is a consensus reached, this can be a subject on the agenda for cross-strait dialogue. The attitude is open. Whether this one can become one on the agenda of the meeting with Mr. Jiang depends on how strong a consensus is reached within our society. For various proposals, and how acceptable these alternatives are, we are very open to discussion.
Q. President Chen mentioned his hope for applying the Korean model in which the state leaders can shake hands for a rapprochement. But the Korean model has been developed under the premise of unification. President Chen has not mentioned the word “unification” up to now but used the word “rapprochement.” Is the new government’s ultimate objective to reach unification or something else? How is the two-Korea model applicable to the cross-strait relations?
A. President Chen today referred particularly to the “Korean summit” not the “Korean model,” – the unification model developed by the two Koreas. He was making a reference to the fact that the two leaders can sit down and discuss without preconditions and prejudice, meaning that no matter how strong the differences are, the two sides can sit down and discuss. Chairperson Tsai, while taking interpellation at the Legislative Yuan, said that unification is a valid alternative for the new government, subject to the general consensus in the whole society. In an EU-sponsored conference, President Chen acclaimed the integration structure and form developed in the process of the European Union. These are all for everyone to think about, discuss, and develop a consensus. To envision a peaceful, mutually acceptable, and a sustainable framework for the two sides is the commitment of the new government.
Q. Please give a concrete evaluation of the possibility of resuming cross-strait talks after President Chen gave his interpretation about “one China” today.
A. Talks or negotiations cannot be held unilaterally. That must rely on the willingness of both sides. The new President and the new government have repeatedly expressed good will. We will keep close watch on the reaction from the other side and make cautious evaluation. The entire international framework, environment, and situations are in favor of negotiations. We are pragmatically facing the world’s mega-trend and the whole picture. We are in the mainstream. Therefore, we take initiative to urge the leaders of the two sides to meet. This is the point that the President particularly noted in his speech on the first full month after his inauguration.