Ming Chuan University Department of Criminal Justice

Associate Professor Yu, I- Huei published a special article in China Times: 1992 Consensus have a good day	2019/1/19

The Kuomintang Chairman Wu Dunyi plans to propose the "two-dimensional consensus" in the "two-dimensional consensus", "democratic peace, cross-strait win-win", and generally believes that it is not grounded. When the individual served the National Security Council in the past, he witnessed this moment of history. I feel that Chairman Wu’s argument does not seem to express the true meaning of the 1992 consensus. The first thing to clarify is that the consensus in 1992 did exist. That is to say, with this consensus, the "Wang-Wang talks" held in Singapore in 1993 will be successfully carried out, and four documents "the Mu-Wang-Talks Joint Agreement" and the "Cross-Strait Joint Certificate" will be signed. Use the Verification Agreement, the Cross-Strait Registration Letter Query Compensation Agreement, and the Agreement on the Contact and Talks between the Two Associations. But unfortunately, the Thousand Island Lake incident occurred in 1994, and President Lee Teng-hui visited Cornell University in 1995, which triggered the Taiwan Strait crisis. The US side felt that the cross-strait relations were in an unpredictable danger and repeatedly hoped that the two sides could resume talks. Finally, in the United States and all walks of life, in 1998, Mr. Zhen Zhentao and other people, Xu Huiyou and others went to Shanghai to launch the "second Wang-Ku talks." In the same year, U.S. President Bill Clinton visited the mainland and proposed the "three no policies" in Shanghai - he did not support Taiwan independence; he did not support two China, one China, one Taiwan; he did not think that Taiwan should participate in an international organization with the state as a member state. When Lee Teng-hui accepted the VOA interview in 1999, he proposed the "two-state theory", which once again caused dissatisfaction between Beijing and the United States. The above-mentioned series of misconduct between the two sides of the straits is worse than the original lack of mutual trust. Coupled with the changes in the international environment, the 1992 consensus that was finally established is almost destroyed. As a result, in 2000, after the political party took office, the Bian government began to deny the 1992 consensus and put forward various statements to make the cross-strait relations more complicated and vague. The above-mentioned negotiation process has never touched on the issue of "one country, two systems". Today, it has been repeatedly misguided by people with a heart. The Kuomintang has no national development line and goals, and lacks the ability to discourse. It has never been able to guide the people of Taiwan and young people to a correct cross-strait. the way. In fact, cross-strait exchanges are not a road to prosperity. The people of the country should understand the principle of "harmony between two interests and two struggles." As the Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, Su Qi, said, in order to avoid making the ruling Democratic Progressive Party too sensitive to the "one-China table," the simple term "92 Consensus" was used to summarize the process of the talks. As well as the tacit agreement reached between the two sides, he believes that you can not recognize the term "92 Consensus", but the Chinese cannot deny the talks held in Hong Kong in 1992 and the cross-strait consensus reached during the round-trip negotiations. It is "shelving disputes, pragmatic exchanges, and seeking common development." It is precisely because of the strategic vague space between the two sides that "not expressed in words and verbally stated" that the first official "Wang-Wang talks" held in Singapore in 1993 after 43 years of severance were established. This is based on the development of various exchanges. Therefore, the 1992 consensus is the "cross-strait consensus". Its spirit is the consensus of "shelving disputes, pragmatic exchanges, and living well."



Back