President Ma Ying-jeou attended the opening ceremony of the "Cross-strait Interaction and Exchange Through the Corridors of Time" exhibit on the morning of May 7 at the National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. In remarks, he reiterated that when we abide by the 1992 Consensus, cross-strait relations flourish; if we diverge from it, cross-strait relations will deteriorate; and if we oppose it, there will be turmoil in the Taiwan Strait. Continuing, he said he hopes that people throughout our society can face history squarely, and carry both sides of the Taiwan Strait forward on the path of peace and prosperity.
After his arrival, the president toured the exhibit area and stopped in front of the 1992 Consensus display where he viewed important historical documents. They included meeting minutes from the 8th plenary session of the National Unification Council (NUC) convened by former President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) on August 1, 1992, and correspondence between Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the mainland's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) during November of that same year. Seeing those documents, the president reflected back on the changes and influences that cross-strait negotiations and exchanges have undergone over the past few years.
In remarks, the president noted that over the past seven years the government and people of the Republic of China (ROC) have worked together under the framework of the ROC Constitution to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, meaning "no unification, no independence, and no use of force," while promoting cross-strait exchanges and development based on the 1992 Consensus, whereby each side acknowledges the existence of one China but maintains its own interpretation of what that means. In short, without the 1992 Consensus there would never have been any subsequent negotiations, and the two sides wouldn't have signed 21 agreements. The cause-and-effect relationship is clear. Even if the two sides have yet to resolve their overlapping sovereignty claims, the 1992 Consensus allows them to temporarily shelve disputes while cross-strait relations continue to move forward. The "status quo" of the past seven years has only been possible because the 1992 Consensus effectively handles the most sensitive cross-strait issue: the one China issue.
Addressing the precise meaning of the term "status quo," the president explained that clearly, the current "status quo" and the "status quo" of seven years ago are vastly different. During a teleconference with the World Federation of Taiwanese Associations back on August 3, 2002, former President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) stressed that "Taiwan and China standing on opposite sides of the Taiwan Strait, there is one country on each side. This should be clear." During its tenure as the ruling party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) made "one country on each side" the crux of its cross-strait relations policy. That created cross-strait tension and antagonism, which halted, or even reversed, progress in cross-strait interaction. Aside from approving routine documents, there were no negotiations between the SEF and the ARATS during that era. So during that eight-year period there was basically zero progress in the negotiation process.
President Ma then explained how the combined efforts of the government and people of Taiwan had forged the current "status quo" in both cross-strait and external relations over the past seven years.
He pointed out that since taking office he has actively improved relations with mainland China, leading to numerous concrete achievements. In 2007 there were no commercial flights between Taiwan and the mainland, and cross-strait travelers were limited to holiday charters. But now there are 120 cross-strait commercial flights every day. And in that same year, there were only 823 mainland Chinese exchange students studying in Taiwan. But as of last year a total of over 32,000 mainland Chinese, including both exchange and degree students, have come to Taiwan to study, a 40-fold increase. And as of the end of last year, mainland tourists have made a total of 14 million discrete visits to Taiwan over the past seven years, with 3.94 million visits being made in 2014 alone.
Turning to external relations, the president said that the situation under the previous administration's "scorched earth" diplomacy was plagued by confrontation and strife. During that eight-year period, nine of Taiwan's diplomatic allies were lured away. And although the ROC also lost one ally, Gambia, over the past seven years, mainland China was not a factor in that event. More important is the ROC's participation in international organizations and activities such as UN specialized agencies. At one such organization, the World Health Assembly (WHA), Taiwan's status, name, and level of participation were dramatically upgraded after President Ma took office. The World Health Organization's (WHO) invitation unequivocally stated that: the ROC Minister of Health is invited; the minister is to attend the full formal Assembly meeting and not merely a technical meeting; and the ROC will participate under the name "Chinese Taipei" as a formal observer, not "Taiwan, China." The ROC thus was able to participate in discussions with other countries, strengthen connections, and really make a contribution to progress in the field of global health. All of these developments were significant for domestic medical circles and the populace as a whole.
Recalling changes in the ROC-US relationship over the years, the president said that the US was deeply concerned about the previous administration's "one country on each side" edict. So at her year-end press conference in December of 2007, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly addressed the DPP-initiated referendum on seeking UN membership by stating that, "We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy. It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan trait and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage." Forceful statements like that are rare in history. That proves that cross-strait conflict has an impact on the ROC's external relations.
The president emphasized that since he took office, the ROC's efforts seeking cross-strait rapprochement have been well-received by the US. So confidence at the highest levels of government was quickly restored. The ROC and the US are also working together very closely in the security field, and ROC military procurement from the US has already exceeded US$18.3 billion. Last year, the US also approved to sell the ROC two Perry-class frigates, which shows that bilateral relations are at their highest point since official diplomatic ties were broken. America's two most recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, have both publicly emphasized that Taiwan is an important security and economic partner of the US. This shows that any improvement in cross-strait relations helps further external relations, transforming vicious cycles into virtuous cycles.
The president then commented on DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen's (蔡英文) statement in support of "maintaining the cross-strait status quo." He stressed that the crux of the matter is: What status quo does the public want? The present status quo, or the status quo from seven years ago? The president stated that people don't want to go back to the status quo from seven years ago. Instead, they want to maintain the status quo that the government has spent seven years creating, which means developing cross-strait relations based on peace and prosperity.
In response to DPP criticism of the current administration, the president asked: Could it be that Chairperson Tsai wants to maintain the present status quo that is being criticized for "favoring mainland China and selling out Taiwan?" If not, then what kind of "status quo" is Ms. Tsai thinking about? And how can peace and prosperity be maintained in the Taiwan Strait without the status quo built on the 1992 Consensus of "one China" with respective interpretations?
The president stressed that a candidate for the ROC presidency cannot avoid or sidestep these issues with generalities. Instead of vague answers lacking substance, candidates should provide definitive answers because the policies of a presidential candidate and the fate of 23 million people are inextricably entwined.
Responding to those who maintain that there is no the 1992 Consensus, the president noted that the term was coined by former National Security Council Secretary-General (NSC) Chi Su (蘇起). He then proceeded to cite documents verifying that the 1992 Consensus does exist. The first document is from August 1, 1992 when former President Lee Teng-hui convened the NUC's 8th plenary session. At that meeting a resolution was passed on the meaning of "one China," stating that: "Both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge that there is only one China. However, the two sides have different opinions as to the meaning of 'one China.'" During the meetings in Hong Kong at the end of October that same year, the two sides failed to reach a consensus so the talks were abandoned. Shortly thereafter, on November 3, the ROC's SEF suggested that both sides give their interpretation of "one China" verbally. On November 16 the mainland's ARATS transmitted a response saying that they accepted and respected the SEF's suggestion. Therefore, the 1992 Consensus does exist. It's all there in black-and-white. Even more important is that our side made the proposal for the 1992 Consensus, and the other party responded. The other side didn't make a demand and then force us to accept it.
The president continued, explaining how the 1992 Consensus benefits the ROC. Of course, in our interpretation, "one China" means the Republic of China. So whether it's the current ROC president or an ROC presidential candidate, "'One China' means the ROC. Is accepting that a problem? If it is, then why still run for office?"
The president went on to say that in June of 2000 former President Chen, fresh off his election victory, met Asia Foundation Chairman William Fuller. At that time, Mr. Chen said that, "The new government is willing to accept the consensus reached by the SEF and the ARATS in their previous talks, which is 'One China, with respective interpretations.'" But Mr. Chen complained that the mainland China didn't accept it. The next day Ms. Tsai Ing-wen, Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Minister at that time and now DPP Chairperson, said, "The two sides are willing to handle the 'one China' dispute by having each side express its respective interpretation verbally. Ultimately, each side verbally expressing its respective interpretation will become the actual process for cross-strait consensus. What we call 'one China, with respective interpretations' is the phrase we use to describe that process." That same year Ms. Tsai, in her first interpolation at the Legislative Yuan as MAC minister, expressed it even more clearly when she said, "Our stance is that both sides respectively interpret 'One China.'"
So whether it be the 1992 NUC meeting minutes and SEF-ARATS correspondence, or former President Chen's recorded remarks and Legislative Yuan interpolation responses from Chairperson Tsai, President Ma emphasized, these all verify that there is indeed a 1992 Consensus. As to the origin of the designation "1992 Consensus," the president noted that it is comparable to designations such as the "August 23 Artillery War" or the "June 4th Incident." It is also akin to selecting a name three months after a child is born. In other words, you can't say that the baby wasn't born just because the name was chosen three months later.
The 1992 Consensus, the president said, is significant because it has acted as a buffer, bringing flexibility to cross-strait relations. The "one China" in "one China, respective interpretations" means the Republic of China. It doesn't mean "two Chinas," "one China, one Taiwan," or "Taiwan independence." The 1992 Consensus designation is not an accommodationist approach that panders to the mainland; it's based on the ROC Constitution. So whether it's a sitting president or a future president—they should certainly be able to accept it.
The president remarked that denying the 1992 Consensus may have negative repercussions on cross-strait relations. If someone wants to maintain the existing cross-strait status quo, the president urged them to tell the public precisely how they propose to do that. If they cannot do that, then the term "status quo" is just a slogan, which is extremely dangerous.
The president stated that when we abide by the 1992 Consensus, cross-strait relations thrive; if we diverge from it, cross-strait relations will deteriorate; and if we oppose it, there will be turmoil in the Taiwan Strait. Even though the two sides of the Strait, as well as the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, have been embroiled in conflict for a long time and many lives have been sacrificed, the two sides have finally found a way to resolve issues peacefully. That path should be held in high esteem, and we should stay the course.
In closing, the president reiterated that one can disapprove of history, but that doesn't mean that period of history never happened. People throughout society should face history squarely and work together to pave the way to peace and prosperity in cross-strait relations.
Then the president, along with NSC Secretary-General Kao Hua-chu (高華柱), Minister of the Executive Yuan's MAC Andrew L.Y. Hsia (夏立言), and SEF Chairman Lin Join-sane (林中森), attached a poster with four gears to a display stand on the stage. At the center of each gear was one of four Chinese characters: dignity, reciprocity, negotiation, or exchange. The interlocking gears symbolize that the two sides will continue to uphold those four concepts in their exchanges and cooperation to optimize mutual benefit.