The Historical Truth of the 1992 Consensus and the Origins of Cross-Strait Cooperation

The Formation of the 1992 Consensus and the Proposal of “One China, Different Interpretations”

The “1992 Consensus” is a man-made political term. Its representative meaning is actually the “tacit understanding” mentioned by Koo Chen-fu back then. This understanding is built on the foundation of both sides’ common cognition of “One China.” “Respective interpretations” (Each side taking what it needs) means both sides do not deny each other’s interpretation while not mutually recognizing them. Therefore, the DPP’s deliberate focus on “whether there is a consensus” is fundamentally meaningless.

Many people do not know the origin and content of the 1992 Consensus, so it is necessary to clearly state that historical process in its entirety.

The origin of the 1992 Consensus lies in a meeting in Hong Kong between our side’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Mainland’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) from October 28 to 30, 1992.

Five Proposals from Mainland’s ARATS:

1. The issue of the use of documents across the Taiwan Straits is China’s internal affair.
2. The issue of the use of documents across the Taiwan Straits is China’s affair.
3. The issue of the use of documents across the Taiwan Straits is China’s affair. Considering the reality of different systems existing across the Straits (or that the country has not yet been fully unified), such affairs have their particularity and should be properly resolved through equal consultation among ARATS, the China Notaries Association, and SEF.
4. In the process of both sides across the Straits working together to seek national unification, both sides persist in the One-China principle and properly resolve the issue of the use of cross-strait notarized documents (or other negotiation matters).
5. ARATS, the China Notaries Association, and SEF, according to the consensus that both sides across the Straits persist in the One-China principle, will properly resolve the issue of the use of cross-strait documents through equal consultation.

Five Proposals from Our Side’s SEF:

1. Both sides based on the principle of “One China, two equal political entities.”
2. Both sides based on the principle of “seeking a democratic, free, prosperous, and unified China; cross-strait affairs are fundamentally Chinese affairs.”
3. In view of the long-term state of division across the Taiwan Straits, in the process of both sides working together to seek national unification, both sides agree that document verification (or other negotiation matters) must be properly resolved.
4. Both sides based on the principle of “seeking a peaceful, democratic, and unified China.”
5. Both sides based on the principle of “seeking cross-strait peaceful, democratic unification.”

However, there was no consensus, so our side’s SEF proposed three more options:

6. In view of the fact that China is still in a temporary state of division, in the process of both sides across the Straits working together to seek national unification, due to increasingly frequent non-governmental exchanges across the Straits, to protect the rights and interests of the people across the Straits, document verification should be properly resolved.
7. The issue of cross-strait document verification is an affair between Chinese people across the Straits.
8. In the process of both sides across the Straits working together to seek national unification, although both sides persist in the One-China principle, their cognitions of the meaning of One China differ. However, in view of increasingly frequent non-governmental exchanges across the Straits, to protect the rights and interests of the people across the Straits, document verification should be properly resolved.

The core of the eighth proposal, “although both sides persist in the One-China principle, their cognitions of the meaning of One China differ,” is exactly “One China with Respective Interpretations.”

However, faced with such a significant proposal, the ARATS representative felt his level was not high enough to give a commitment. He then returned to Beijing from Hong Kong. Our representative, Hsu Hui-yu, seeing ARATS representative Zhou Ning leave, still wanted to wait for him to return and specifically stayed in Hong Kong until November 5 before returning to Taiwan.

Seeing the breakdown of the Hong Kong talks, Ma Ying-jeou, Vice Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, delivered a speech on October 31, stating the position: regarding the One-China principle, if the CCP wants to swallow us up with a vague concept, we will absolutely not accept it; our side cannot accept the “One China” principle without explanatory notes (Youth Daily, November 1, 1992, reported by Ye Li-qing).

On November 2, ARATS wrote to SEF, suggesting preparatory consultations for the Koo-Wang talks in Beijing, Taipei, Kinmen, or other appropriate locations on the Mainland.

On the morning of November 3, Sun Yafu, Deputy Secretary-General of ARATS, told Chen Rong-jie by phone that the Mainland side decided to make concessions on the expression of “One China,” agreeing to express the “One China” principle orally, with specific content to be negotiated separately.

On November 3, our SEF immediately issued a press release: “With the consent of the competent authority, this foundation finds it acceptable to express respectively by means of oral statements. As for the specific content of the oral statement, our side will express it according to the Guidelines for National Unification and the resolution regarding the ‘Meaning of One China’ made by the ‘National Unification Council’ on August 1 of this year.”

At noon on November 16, ARATS wrote to SEF, expressing the Mainland’s content regarding “One China” and mentioning that cross-strait functional talks do not involve the political meaning of “One China”; thus, the use of notarized documents and other issues could be properly resolved. Later, when both sides disputed whether there was a “1992 Consensus” in 2000, this letter was republished by various media outlets. The full text of the letter from ARATS is available for study:

Straits Exchange Foundation: From October 28 to 30, personnel from our association and the China Notaries Association held functional talks with your foundation’s personnel regarding the use of cross-strait notarized documents, and also exchanged views on opening inquiries and compensation for lost registered mail across the Straits. This functional talk not only made significant progress on specific business issues but also on the issue of expressing the One-China principle in cross-strait functional negotiations, which is the result of joint efforts from all parties involved. After the functional talks in Beijing ended in March, our association repeatedly stated that specific issues in cross-strait exchanges are Chinese affairs and should be resolved through consultation based on the One-China principle; in functional negotiations, as long as the basic attitude that both sides across the Straits persist in the One-China principle is stated, the political meaning of ‘One China’ need not be discussed. The method of expressing the One-China principle in functional negotiations can be fully discussed and consulted, and we are willing to listen to the opinions of your foundation and all circles in Taiwan. In this round of functional talks, your foundation’s representative suggested that under the premise of mutual understanding, respective oral statements from our two associations should be adopted to express the One-China principle, and proposed specific content (see attachment), which clarified that both sides across the Straits persist in the One-China principle; this content has subsequently appeared in Taiwanese newspapers. We noticed that Mr. Hsu Hui-yu issued a public written statement on November 1, expressing an attitude consistent with the above suggestion. On November 3, your foundation’s letter formally notified our association that consent has been obtained from relevant quarters in Taiwan to ‘express respectively via oral statements.’ Our association fully respects and accepts your foundation’s suggestion and already informed Mr. Chen Rong-jie by phone on November 3. To bring the negotiations on the use of cross-strait notarized documents to a successful conclusion as soon as possible, we hereby inform your foundation of the key points our association intends to state orally: Both sides of the Straits persist in the One-China principle and strive to seek national unification, but in functional negotiations across the Straits, the political meaning of ‘One China’ is not involved. Based on this spirit, the use of cross-strait notarized documents (or other negotiation matters) will be properly resolved. Our association suggests that after our two associations agree to make respective oral statements simultaneously, we continue to negotiate some diverging specific business issues in the draft agreements in Beijing or Taiwan, Xiamen or Kinmen, and have the heads of our two associations sign the agreements. Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, November 16, 1992. Attachment: The oral statement proposal submitted by your foundation on the afternoon of October 30: ‘In the process of both sides of the Straits working together to seek national unification, although both sides persist in the One-China principle, their cognitions of the meaning of One China differ. However, in view of increasingly frequent non-governmental exchanges across the Straits, to protect the rights and interests of the people across the Straits, document verification should be properly resolved.’

Thus, ARATS accepted the “One China with Respective Interpretations” proposed by our SEF via fax. Consequently, full-scale preparations for the Koo-Wang talks in the following year, 1993, began.

The most important point regarding the 1992 Consensus is: The 1992 Consensus “One China with Respective Interpretations” was proposed by our side, by the Chinese Kuomintang, and by the Republic of China.

Please do not believe the following four lies from Taiwan independence activists and the Pan-Green camp any longer:

1. There was no 1992 Consensus.
2. There was no respective interpretation for “One China.”
3. The 1992 Consensus is “One Country, Two Systems.”
4. The 1992 Consensus was forced upon Taiwan by the CCP.