Chiu Tai-san: With 1992 Consensus Disputed, Can There Be A "Constructive Ambiguity？"
United Daily News, March 18, 2021
Minister Chiu Tai-san of the Mainland Affairs Council stated on March 18 that the term “1992 Consensus” has generated controversy in Taiwan, and if mainland China continues to insist upon it as a political premise, it would be an unfair and impractical demand. Chiu further indicated whether the two sides can find a greatest common denominator or a “constructive ambiguity” relies upon the wisdom and stances of both sides.
Chiu made the above statement at the March 18 regular press conference when he was questioned if he ever tried to draw up a new discourse or statement closer to the substantive content of 1992 Consensus to break the ice between the two sides.
Chiu expressed that even the interpretations of the connotation of 1992 Consensus by Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang (KMT) were different. The KMT also believes that it should take more proactive attitude and make some adjustments to the 1992 Consensus. Obviously, the dispute over the 1992 Consensus were understandable to all factions in Taiwan. Therefore, if mainland China still insists upon it as a political premise and demands that the other side conform to that framework, it would be an unfair, unreasonable, and impractical request.
Chiu said if both sides across the strait could find a greatest common divisor, it would be mutual beneficial and less controversial to both sides. Furthermore, whether the two sides could create a so-called “constructive ambiguity” relies upon the wisdom and attitude of both sides.
According to Chiu, since her inauguration in 2016, President Tsai Ing-wen has maintained that cross-strait dialogue and communication would continue under the existing mechanism, while respecting the political mindset of mutual understanding and shelving controversies in order to find common ground. Taiwan’s cross-strait policy position has remained consistent and unchanged. Both sides should continue to promote peaceful and stable development cross-strait relations based upon the existing facts and political foundations.
Chiu also pointed out that Taiwanese people as well as political parties are skeptical, even hostile, towards the meaning and mechanism of “One Country, Two Systems.” Taiwan hopes that the mainland can keep an open mind about promoting interaction across the strait.
In addition, some news reporters inquired which exchanges Taiwan expects the mainland to restore after the pandemic lockdown eases? And if the mainland disregards Taiwan’s requests, would Taiwan reciprocate and create a stalemate again? Chiu responded that if both sides cross the straits could pinpoint those issues of desired mutual cooperation, while candidly make each other’s mechanisms understood and acceptable by the other, then it would immensely help the future development of cross-strait relations.
Chiu called upon mainland China to understand the differences in the systems and values between the two sides and not to enforce its political framework thinking and confrontational measures on Taiwan. The Taiwanese government would by no means have any confrontational thinking on our cross-strait relations policy. According to Chiu, even if the mainland cannot cooperate, Taiwan will still open up in light of its established policies and mechanisms.