Bu Yue

On February 5th, Song Tao, the Central Taiwan Office of the New Mainland Government and Director of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the National Taiwan Office, said at the Spring Festival for the Chinese New Year in 2023: "The mainland is willing to work with Taiwan on the basis of a Chinese principle and the" 1992 consensus ".People of insight in all walks of life have conducted extensive in -depth negotiations on cross -strait relations and unified countries. As long as Taiwan's official recognition reflects the "1992 Consensus" of the Chinese principle, the cross -strait negotiation negotiations can be restored. "

During the twice administration of the Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan, the institutionalized communication and negotiating negotiation mechanisms on both sides of the strait were interrupted.Beijing said that this was because the DPP refused to acknowledge the "1992 Consensus" that reflected a China principle.

Song Tao's above speech can be regarded as an offer issued by Beijing to the DPP: as long as you agree with the "1992 Consensus", the long -term cross -strait negotiation negotiations can be restored.

The question is, for the keywords in this sentence- "1992 Consensus", the DPP and the Kuomintang of Beijing, Taiwan, and the Kuomintang have different interpretations.

In 1992, after the two sides of the strait were authorized, the Mainland Maritime Association and the Taiwan Sea Foundation Association repeatedly negotiated and communicated and communicated, and reached the consensus of "nine nine to adhere to the principle of China" in verbally, that is, "Nine Nine", that is, "Nine NineTwo consensus.This is a consistent expression of Beijing's "1992 Consensus" over the years.

The political shrinking language of "1992 Consensus" was first proposed by Su Qi, the chairman of the MAC during the period of Li Denghui.After the Kuomintang was in power again, Ma Ying -jeou summarized the "1992 Consensus" as a "table in one middle".Such a summary can be regarded as a description of historical facts: When the cross -strait discussion in 1992, the mainland insisted on a Chinese People's Republic of China, and Taiwan insisted that one of the Republic of China is the Republic of China.

Beijing believes that the core meaning of the "1992 Consensus" is that "the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the same China and work together to seek national unity."The core meaning is about the content below the form. There is also a consensus behind the surface differences, that is, the two sides of the strait belong to China.From Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping, it is repeated that both sides of the strait belong to China is a historical fact that has never changed.

However, the lack of concepts restrict the accurate expression of thought.

Because "China" is a versatile word, it can be referred to as the historical, geographical, and national China -or China; or China; it can also be referred to as the People's Republic of China.Therefore, the audience can interpret three interpretations of "both sides of the strait belongs to the same China": one is that cross -strait belongs to China, and the other is the Cross -Strait of the People's Republic of China.

Beijing only expresses "both sides of the Taiwan Strait is the same China" without doing further explanations, and the audience cannot know the true intention of Beijing.

Although the Kuomintang's interpretation of the "1992 Consensus" is different from Beijing, Beijing still believes that the Kuomintang recognizes (Beijing defined) "92 consensus".This shows that in addition to the "1992 Consensus" expressed by the two parties, there are still some things that really belong to consensus.In this regard, the author has published a document in the United Zaobao: Behind the "one middle of the middle", the two sides agree with the same Chinese China.In other words, both sides of the strait are the real "1992 consensus."

The DPP did not agree with the "1992 Consensus" in history. It was believed that when the cross -strait discussion in 1992, the two sides said each "one China", emphasizing differences;After a slight language, the interpretation of Beijing and the Kuomintang is also different.In the sense of fine thinking and rigorous language expression, the two sides did not reach consensus on "one China" at that time.

This is also from the perspective of the bystander to express his views on this historical facts.If the two parties have the same language expressed in the same fact, and the content of their expression is different, strictly speaking, the two sides have not reached a consensus.

For the same thing, people can stand at different angles to express the different characteristics of things, so there will be different expressions of the same thing. One of the expressions cannot deny the other expression.For the water in the cup, A cannot be used by the "water is hot" that it is determined, and the "water is sweet" determined by B.

For ambiguous language, the audience thinks that the audience is ambiguous.If two people communicate in person, one person thinks that the other party is ambiguous, and ask directly to let the speaker further clarify the meaning expressed, and the problem will be solved.However, in non -direct exchanges, ambiguous languages will inevitably lead to their own words and unable to communicate.

If Beijing really intends to negotiate negotiation with Taiwan's official recovery, we must first further clarify the meaning of "cross -strait belongs to the same China".Only by clearing a China principle as "the two sides of the strait belong to China" can it be possible to get the support of the people of Taiwan and get the official response and recognition of Taiwan on the basis of this.

Does Taiwan belong to the People's Republic of China?This is a sharp issue that cannot be avoided in cross -strait relations.If Beijing adheres to the People's Republic of China, under the current situation, the unity of both sides of the strait is only the road of martial arts.

Taiwan officials and people from all walks of life in Taiwan, as the appointment of the cross -strait negotiations, the first thing to have a ambiguity for Beijing is to ask Beijing: "You say 'The two sides of the strait belong to the same China', which may have three.In this interpretation, which one do you have to express? "It is clear that the other party's proposition can make a response to the" 1992 Consensus "in Beijing.

The author is Beijing Retired Lawyer