Lin Yuan: Commented ＂92 Consensus based on the Constitution of the Republic of China＂

Lin Yuan

The Reform Commission, which was adopted by the Fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang at the Fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang on September 6, put forward the party's cross -strait policy at this stage.The policy did not abandon the 1992 consensus, but proposed the 1992 consensus based on the Constitution of the Republic of China.

The so -called constitution of the Republic of China must not belong to the cross -strait consensus MDASH; MDash; mainland China has the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and the two constitutions are very different.It should also be pointed out that in the process of discussing and forming a consensus (later known as the 1992 Consensus) in 1992, the two sides did not mention the constitution on the various text expressions proposed by the principle of China.Essence

The Kuomintang watches one of the Chinese Republic of China (the conclusion also uses the Republic of China in the conclusion, referring to the Republic of China established in the mainland in 1912, not the Republic of China, Taiwan, Taiwan, Taiwan,The two consensus, the two are essentially consistent (but the focus is different).

The party's important thing, Ma Ying -jeou, Wu Dunyi, and others emphasized the 1992 consensus. Each table in the first China advocated that the two could not be dismantled. This is actually not accepted by the CCP, and the latter's position can be roughly summarized by one Zhongzhong.In November 1992, the Mainland Maritime Association wrote a letter to the Taiwan Sea Foundation and mentioned that in the cross -strait transaction discussion, it did not involve LSQUO; a Chinese rsquo; political meaning.It can be considered that the one of the first middle school is more vague, and the each of the one -China table emphasize the differences in the same China, and the differences between the two sides are clear.

Although neither the KMT and the Communist Party do not deny the existence of the 1992 consensus, because of the fundamental opposition to each other's expressions, the consensus should be mainly regarded as formal consensus, and it is difficult to say that it is a substantial consensus.However, it denys the one -China one, Taiwan's independence, etc. From this perspective, it is not completely unsatisfactory.The Kuomintang's recent reform committee concluded reports reported that it resolutely opposed Taiwan's independence and the CCP's country and two systems.

Different from opposition to Taiwan's independence, opposition to one country, two systems is definitely not the consensus of the Communist Party of China. Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping also proposed a plan for one country, two systems.It can be considered that the Cross -Strait policy issued by the Kuomintang this time makes it more difficult for the 1992 consensus to become a substantial consensus.

Jiang Qichen led the Kuomintang's 92 consensus based on the Constitution of the Republic of China, instead of being a table in the first middle school, it is better to be a self -table one (also the 1992 consensus).Since the CCP's position is inclined to the middle of the Chinese Communist Party, it should not be tit -for -tit -up at this stage.Assuming that both sides do this, it means that it is moving towards the 92 consensus based on their respective constitutions, and this is not beneficial to the reduction of differences between the two parties.

It should also be pointed out that the 1992 consensus based on the Constitution of the Republic of China is used to deal with Cai Yingwen, who is elected as the highest leader of the Republic of China and does not recognize the 1992 consensus.Follow the Constitution of the Republic of China.However, in an attempt to continue cross -strait interaction with this 1992 consensus, or that the Kuomintang led by Jiang Qichen has not considered whether the CCP can really accept it.To the extent, this method of promotion helps the continuation of cross -strait interaction, and it is necessary to continue to observe.

No surprise, the Kuomintang did not clearly say and strive to seek national unity when the Kuomintang policies were in the emergence stage. In 1992, the Mainland Maritime Association and the Taiwan Sea Foundation negotiated in Hong Kong's post -correspondence. Both parties mentioned this.Therefore, it should have belonged to the 1992 consensus, but it has become the unwilling to mention most Kuomintang (except a few people such as Hong Xiuzhu).As for the party's reform committee's conclusion report, the Republic of China is the answer to the future of the Cross -Strait, which seems to be pointing out, but it is not clear.

Jiang Qichen, the current chairman of the Kuomintang, is a local blue. In the internal political atmosphere of Taiwan and under pressure, the consensus view of 1992 is not very positive.However, due to the opposition in the party, the Kuomintang led by the party did not abandon the 1992 consensus, but proposed the 92 consensus based on the Constitution of the Republic of China.This expression of the 1992 consensus may further blur the consensus of the Communist Party of China.It may be useless in response to the criticism of Taiwan Green Camp, but it is difficult to play a great active role when dealing with the CCP.

However, the announcement of the new consensus on the 1992 consensus, after all, does not stimulate the Communist Party of China, including the discarding the consensus, including its Taiwan -related system.In the case of the DPP's rejection of the 1992 consensus, the Kuomintang did not give up the 1992 consensus, and perhaps at this stage, it was not significant to continue cross -strait interaction.

The author is a doctor of history, scholar travel