Talk:1992 Consensus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What Consensus?[edit]

According to Hsu Huei-yu, who participated the meeting of 1992, both side merely aggreed that there was a huge gap in the understanding on the issue of the "one-china" and therefore both agreed to disagree with each other.[1] Hsu asserted in 2001 that there is no consensus has ever been reached. In 2003, Koo also publicly pointed out that there was no consensus on the "one-china" issue during the Hong Kong meeting of 1992. "However, PRC delegates accepted our proposal after the meeting to interact with mutal respect and on an equal basis in the future" says Koo. Koo suggested that the result of that meeting should be called a "1992 accord" rather than a "1992 consensus".[2]

The consensus here is the consensus to leave the issue of exact defintions of "one China" aside, i.e., to agree to disagree. No one is realistically claiming there was consensus to agree on the meaning of "one China." Even the PRC isnt saying the "Taiwan authorities" recognized the PRC as the sole China...

so the point is? --Jiang 08:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is: There is not a single agreement on the "one-china" issue has ever being made. PRC is certainly not requesting ROC to recognize PRC as the sole China. However, PRC is pushing ROC to recognize that both ROC(Taiwan) and PRC are part of China. This is something over-extrapolating from the initial agreement to disagree each other. Especially, nowadays, both the ROC and the Taiwanese public opinions have already shifted away from the "one-china" ideology. Acknowledging the disagreement between each other must not be equated as agreeing on the issue of "one-china". Moreover, where is the evidence that ROC made an agreement with PRC to acknowledge "one-China"? Obviously, there is no such evidence.

The "Consensus of 1992" (Chinese:九二共識) described an agreement, reached by semi-official representatives of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, to adhere to the one-China principle.

I was actually really troubled by the statement above. Since the "one-China principle" is commonly defined as PRC's definition, this statement would mislead readers to believe that ROC did agreed on the "one-china policy" at one point but reverted later, which is totally not true. Mababa 09:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

they did agree on one china, just not its details. no, according to the KMT government that agreed to the "one-china principle", "one China" did not mean the PRC. That's Chen Shui-bian's inference and an pro-independence pov.
remember, it was only a year before that the ROC government issued the Guidelines for National Unification: "Both the mainland and Taiwan areas are parts of Chinese territory."
the controversy is whether they agreed there were differences, or did they just set those differences aside? --Jiang 09:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think youhave just brought up the core of the dispute: 1)whether they decided to put the dispute aside or 2)at least they agreed on "one-china" with the details of interpretation left with deliberate ambiguity and room for imagination.

對此,九二年親身參與香港會談的許惠祐接受訪問時做上述表示,他並強調兩岸從未有過九二共識,他怎可能呼籲政府去接受。 許惠祐表示,九二年兩岸曾在香港就一個中國問題有過討論,但雙方未能獲致共識,即使我方後來電傳大陸建議對此問題「各說各話」,對方也僅以傳真回覆表示「尊重」,而尊重和「同意」、「承認」有相當距離,更何況,九二年之後,大陸也從未公開承認「一個中國、各自表述」。[3]

台灣日報【台灣論壇】(2003/04/23)  四月十六日,海基會董事長辜振甫在日本早稻田大學接受榮譽博士典禮上發表演說《新時代日台與兩岸關係展望》。辜老明確指出— 當時(一九九二)「一個中國」問題雙方意見分歧,香港會議並無共識。真正在政治爭論打上休止符的,並不是香港會議所達成,而是會後對方接受我方提議,站在相互尊重、對等協商的原則下繼續交往。所以是「相互諒解」,應該用Accord比較貼切,而不是「共識」。 [4]

Based on the two news reports above, Taiwanese delegates affirmed that there was no agreement being reached. All the understanding and acknowledgement were actually obtained after the meeting. Thus, IMO, the first senario seemed to be more appropriate to describe what happened.

I wonder if it is appropriate or accurate to take a totally different document to infer what has been concluded during the meeting. Even though the ROC officials has yet officially dropped their pursuit on one-china at that time, we must not make articles looklike what might have happened versus what actually happened.

For people can read the manderin Wiki on the 92 meeting[5] which has much more detail on the meeting process, they will find out this meeting is a bargaining process where each side receive a proposal on "one-china" from an opposite and propose its own version on the agreement. PRC delegates tried hard to sell the clause "both side adhere to one-china prinicple" to be appreared in the announcement concluded in the end of the meeting. ROC delegates tried to emphasize on the differences on the interpretation, which PRC delegates firmly opposed. At the end, nothing can be concluded. Not even a "one-china" priniciple was agreed from both sides.

Sure, the ROC delegates did referred to the "Guidelines for National Unification" for the definition of one-china. However, was that definition part of the consensus? Apparently, the PRC delegates simply cherry picked the one-china thing and made it sound like part of the consensus. The ROC delegates publicly said, no consensus being made and no documents being concluded to suggest a consensus being reached. The readers should be albe to draw their own conclusion based on the evidence presented with their own judgement.

Please also note that PRC has never recognized or endorsed the so-called conclusion "one-china with different interpretation" after the meeting until recent. 。比如說,唐樹備就曾經在1997年7月表示,「一段時期以來,台灣方面把海協與海基會就兩會事務性商談中『海峽兩岸均堅持一個中國之原則』達成口頭共識,歸結為所謂『一個中國,各自表述』,這顯然不符合當時的情況」(引自李銘義 2001,2)。[6] Mababa 02:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

no consensus on what? simply saying there's no consensus can lead to political spin.
unfortunately, my Chinese isnt good enough to read all that. the Chinese article should be translated. i've asked for help. let's see any arrives...ill look around for english texts in the meantime --Jiang 11:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jiang, I have noticed that wareware was kind enough to make the translation for these cited mandarin news. I am sorry that my english is not good enough and that's why I did not make all the translation on the segments I cited at the beginning.

Back to the dispute. Simply saying there's no consensus can lead to political spin. But, to say there *is* a consensus has already created political spin.

I am not trying to skew the article into a pro-ROC atmosphere. However, erasing ROC's argument does not seem to be a the way to reach a neutral point. I suggest that we can include PRC's emphasis on their one-china consensus and also present ROC's emphasis on "no-consensus" together in the article.Mababa 03:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

well, first of all i do not know if the original chinese documents are accurate enough. However, there's little talk about that "1992 consensus" right now in the political world. However it would be obsurd to think that the Taiwanese Government would "agree" on any one-China "policy".
I agree with Mababa's point of view as in including both sides of the argument, as the PRC is trying to include taiwan in its territory when clearly half of the ROC people are willing to follow the ROC government. The democracies of the western world will not accept such actions.
anyways, when you translate one language such as Chinese into another language such as English, discrepancies are bound to happen. But i have little political background of this event to really know what happened. To cut things short, since this 'consensus' involves both sides, then the point of view of both sides should be included equally. LG-犬夜叉 15:33, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

ROC's officials are probably one of the most difficult public positions in this world. No one listens to them, and their rebuke on cross strait issues only appear in local news.

Thanks to LG-犬夜叉 for your effort as a referee. Jiang is my BEST friend in Wikipedia and I am sure that we will have a neutral article in the end. We probably have went through discussions in every Taiwan-related topics on the neutrality issue ever since I first started my wiki-life; and almost everytime, Jiang's edits turned out to be not only neutral and but also pertinent in the end. I have learned a lot Wikiquette from him.

I just want to remind people here that the very existence of this so-called consensus is still in dispute and was publicly denied by the ROC officials. We should at least make their arguements with some visibility instead of ignoring them at all. Especially the original article would leave people the impression that ROC did agree to follow "one-china" policy, which really is not the case.Mababa 03:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the poster of the original article, I want to thank everybody for their edits and fixes. I tried to be neutral, but didn't get it quite right. I'm glad there were so many people to help correct that. (This was the first article that I posted, so I'm still getting used to things...) Tomasso

Don't be so modest. I have to give you big plaud and thannk you. Had you not initiated the article, we do not know when would this page be stated. Many thanks.Mababa 03:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We must remember that this has never been a two sided-issue. There's the PRC side, but the Taiwan side is divided between those supporting independence or unification. What makes this especially confusing is that people like Lee Teng-hui have made a massive migration across the spectrum--the pro-independence views Lee is espousing today could have gotten someone jailed under his own presidency! To add to this confusion, some of this migration occurred when Lee was still president.

According to the PRC [7]:
"For its part, the SEF insisted that "talks between the two sides on functional affairs are unrelated to political topics" and emphasized that "it is acknowledged that they differ" over the political meaning of one China. Hence during the Beijing talks, the SEF had not yet been authorized to discuss its position on stating the one-China principle, and it therefore adopted a stance of avoidance or even rejection. Because of the stalemate over this fundamental question, when the two sides began to discuss specific matters such as document usage and the tracing of and compensation for lost registered mail, obvious divergences began to emerge in areas ranging from the choice of words to ways of handling issues....The Taiwan regime unilaterally summed up the 1992 consensus as “one China, separately expressed by each side”; it avoided mentioning that it had confirmed the oral declaration of the one-China principle, the third oral formula proposed by the SEF on October 30, 1992, and the resolution of August 1, 1992,on the one-China question by the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines; it distorted the 1992 consensus as “each speaking for itself” and misled people into believing that the Taiwan regime could make an “open” interpretation of the one-China principle, thereby creating a basis for its advocacy of dividing the country. Thereafter, Lee Teng-hui’s “expressions” of one-China began to deviate more and more brazenly from the one-China principle."

I dont see a neutrality dispute, but this article needs much more detail to make it less confusing and to avoid having people make the wrong assumptions. So when people refer to the "consensus", could they be referring to the consensus to set the issue aside? President Chen doesnt seem to be really denying the consensus existed. --Jiang 19:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang has nicely summarized the core of the question where not only the initial communication between SEF and ARATS is ambiguious, but also the public opinion on the interpretation of the result is splitted. Indeed there would not be a neutrality dispute as long as more details on the ROC position is included.
Not only people should remember that there is opposing public opinions on the interpretation of the meeting among Taiwanese residentsm, readers should also be made aware of the ROC official position on the interpretation of the result of the 92 meeting. The ROC official position, which is the counterpart of the PRC official position, has to be distinguished from the Taiwanese public opinion since public opinion is more subjective and always changes whereas official positions represent a country's policy and is objective.
My doubt on the neutrality resides in previous edits where the deposition of the ROC delegates were removed and the text of the article assumes the consensus was reached at the beginning which is actually highly disputed.
Let me emphasize again that both the ROC delegates (Koo+Hsu) and also the ROC MAC officials denied the existence of a consensus. These people are not TI supporters and more often are regarded as people more sympathetic to unification. Moreover, they are officials and their opinions should not be seen as a change of heart as Lee, or part of the public opinions.
avoided mentioning that it had confirmed the oral declaration of the one-China principle, the third oral formula proposed by the SEF on October 30, 1992, and the resolution of August 1, 1992,on the one-China question by the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines
People should also be made aware that these guidelines and resolution and even the oral declaration on the "one-china" was proposed by SEF and was not endorsed by ARATS. Thus, it would be difficult to call a consensus reached by both side. For more details, please refer to Chinese wiki.
I guess we will need to include the process of the negotiation of the meeting to ellucidate whether a consensus was reached at all or not. For the time being, the article was clear that PRC insisted that a consensus was reached and ROC refused to call it a consensus.
Chen's vice president rejects the alledged consensus. So does Chen's mentor, Lee. I would be amazed if President Chen ever admits the existence of an alledged consensus. One should notice in his inauguration speech, he carefully chose the wording in refering to the meeting. Mababa 03:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

國民黨立委蘇起21日上午坦承,九二共識確實是他在2000年,為重新包裝「一中各表」所自創的新名詞[8] Kenimaru 10:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that, ROC delegates stated to the Taiwanese people that the conclusion of the 92 meeting is that "One China, different interpretation" while PRC "acknowledges the disputes over the meaning of 'One China' but is willing to NOT discuss about the meaning." Please note that the flexibility of interpretation (ROC) is not warranted by the PRC, as they are merely willing to NOT talk about it. I believe that the "different interpretation" part is a pre-requisete for the "One China" policy to work for ROC, but this is not accepted by PRC. So, there is NO consensus, as the only agreement would be that "both sides agreed on that we have no agreement." 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This topic is so simple and straightforward. There are two well-established regimes in China, both of them co-exist in China. The so-called 1992 consensus reflect the fact that when PRC and ROC met in 1992 in HK, none of them denied the China identity, and both sides discussed the content of the Beijing China and Taipei China and came up with the different One China interpretation between PRC and ROC.

Proposed solution on the dispute[edit]

We can create sections where PRC's offical position and her demands on Taiwan regime are introduced and then a second section where ROC's official position revealed. Public opinions in Taiwan can be included in part of the ROC section. A solution repeatedly used in political status of Taiwan and also the legal status of Taiwan.Mababa 19:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yeah it'd be a good idea to separate the positions. Wareware 01:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrote taking into account recent events.....

The KMT, PFP, and CCP define 92 consensus in the same way. We'll have to wait a few more weeks to see what happens with the DPP and with the ROC government in general.

Roadrunner 06:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Seems more POV, to me. Adam 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it IS afterall, created by Su, Chi in 2000, 8 years after the meeting. Good thing that this finally comes up.

Interpetation of "one-China"[edit]

The PRC of course wants "one-China" to include both Taiwan and China. However in all the statements I've ever read of what the "1992 concensus" is, it has always been "one China with different interpretations". Given that, Xinhua seems, particularly a Chinese language article, to be the an unreliable source for the idea that "one-China" means only the interpretation that the PRC would prefer. Readin (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Existence of 1992 consensus[edit]

The fact that the DPP questioned the existence of a 1992 consensus is covered in the Taipei Times article. There is no reason to believe that they have changed their mind. This information belongs in the first paragraph because whether something is fictional or real os a fundamental thing to know about it. We shouldn't give the impression that something is well known to be real when there are serious questions about its existence. Readin (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to open the paragraph would be:

The 1992 Consensus or Consensus of 1992 (simplified Chinese: 九二共识; traditional Chinese: 九二共識; pinyin: Jiŭ-Èr Gòngshí; literally: "'92 Consensus") is a term invented in 2000 to describe the outcome of a meeting in 1992 between the representatives of the People's Republic of China in mainland China and the Republic of China in Taiwan. The alleged Consensus is that... Readin (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a reason to believe that DPP have changed their mind. It's common in a democracy for a party to change position after an election loss. This as well as the fact that the DPP has been silent on '1992 Consensus' since the election support the view. The term '1992 Consensus' has been on media on nearly a daily basis from 22 March 2008 to early June because of a series of cross-strait events, such as Bo-ao, KMT's visit to mainland China, official talks between the two sides. It would be curious on part of the DPP that they have not objected to '1992 Consensus' if they disagree with it. The language used by those pan-green TV stations' political programmes is agreeing to the Consensus is to sell Taiwan ("賣台"). First, pan-green political programmes aren't official DPP's view. The programmes are mainly propaganda. Second, not agreeing to the consensus is different from not admitting. The pan-green political programmes' view is Taiwan is an independent country and therefore they disagree with the spirit of the consensus. But that does not mean the consensus doesn't exist.

'1992 Consensus' is a Consensus without a consensus on the definition of One China. But there is a Consensus that there is One China.

Given the fact that the '1992 Consensus' has been used as the foundation of the most recent cross-strait talks, my view is that it is immaterial to argue that the Consensus did not exist, as it is impossible to undo the agreement - the direct flights have already taken place and the mainland Chinese tourists are now in Taiwan. I do not believe that DPP would still dispute the existence of the Consensus, as this serves them very little, if any, political leverage. Therefore, they have been silent on this issue.

Also, I do not object to the mentioning of ROC's downplaying of being the sole and legitimate representative of China but I don't think it should be in the introduction, as the introduction deals with the content, interpretation and effect of the consensus. If any of the practical matter is to be mentioned, this section is an inappropriate place.

As '1992 Consensus' is a cross-strait issue, it is inevitable that the primary sources would most likely to be in the Chinese language, as it is the common language of mainland China and Taiwan. Of course, if an English source is available, preference is given to English. However, in practice English source is difficult to come by, except for some English newspapers in Taiwan, and if an official mainland China position is needed, the English version of Xinhua newspaper.--Pyl (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have reason to believe the DPP has changed its mind, but without a reference it's OR. In this case you're not just stringing facts together, you're trowing in your own assumptions and expectations about other people's behavior. And the logic is self-contradictory. First you say the DPP must have changed their mind because they're remaining silent. Then you say that the DPP is remaining silent because speaking out wouldn't gain them any political leverage. Which is it? Are they silent because they have changed their mind, or are they silent because speaking out wouldn't help?
You say "and if an official mainland China position is needed, the English version of Xinhua newspaper" but that is the problem of using the Xinhua Chinese source. Xinhua is a fine source for the official PRC position, but on a contentious issue where the PRC has a clear POV, Xinhua is difficult to trust. It is especially difficult to trust when in Chinese because the Xinhua editors know they are speaking mostly to mainland Chinese and won't get the same kind of international scrutiny as if they were writing in English. Readin (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your view on the Xinhua issue and therefore I try not to use Xinhua source unless no other source is found. As I said, the issues that we are dealing with are inherently an issue within the Chinese speaking community and it has been quite difficult to locate sources in English.
In respect of the DPP, either way, they haven't expressed a view after the election and therefore I do not think it's appropriate to state that "DPP objects to the existence of the consensus" given that it is basically a statement to allege the existence of a fact, which cannot be sustantiated by sources after the election.
My view is simple, before the election, DPP objects to the Consensus. After the election, they have been silent. So it is fair to say that they have a change of attitude in respect of expressing their view, either they still object to it or they have changed their mind. If they don't want to say anything about it, I dont think wiki should still say "they object to the consensus".
It is also clear from the historical section of the article that they had a history of objecting to the Consensus and I think this serves the point of letting the readers know that at least they did object to the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talkcontribs) 07:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the consensus really permeate Taiwan's foreign policy?[edit]

Taiwan's Foreign Ministry often uses 'China' to refer to the PRC and 'Taiwan' to refer to itself. What foreign policy implications could this have in relation to the consensus? Ladril (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal describes lack of consensus[edit]

I haven't had as much time for Wikipedia recently as I once had. But I still think about it, like when I see this.

In the past two years, Taiwan and China have improved a once-tense relationship that is based on the so-called ‘92 consensus, a term created in 1999 for a conclusion both sides reached in the 1992 negotiations.

But whether there really was a consensus and what the consensus was became an issue this week.

It started with a senior official from China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, an organization in charge of China’s negotiations with Taiwan, talking about Beijing’s definition of the ‘92 consensus in Taipei on Wednesday, saying “Both sides insisted on the One China principle in 1992.”

Taiwan disagreed.

There's more, hopefully they won't put it behind a subscription. Readin (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

    • In 1992 Consensus on 2011-05-25 05:59:26, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 1992 Consensus on 2011-06-24 19:38:11, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1992 Consensus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)