• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Taipei, April 28 (CNA) The current stalemate between Taipei and Beijing over "one China" could be resolved by President-elect Chen Shui-bian in his May 20 inauguration speech, according to the head of Taiwan's cross-strait policy-making body.

Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Chairman Su Chi said Chen could suggest that both sides should adhere to the "1992 consensus."

Su made the suggestion in a speech he delivered on Friday at a seminar jointly sponsored by the Chinese Europe-Asia Educational Foundation and National Sun Yat-Sen University titled "The Development of Taiwan and Cross-Strait Relations in the 21st Century."

During his address, Su urged both Chen's new administration and the Beijing authorities to be "ambiguous" in handling the "One China" issue.

Su said that currently there are four interpretations of what constitutes "One China."

They are: Beijing's version that there is only one China, of which Taiwan is a part; the Kuomintang's version that one China is a historical, cultural and geographic concept which is currently divided, but will be reunified in the future; Chen's version that one China is a topic for discussion, not a prerequisite for talks; and Washington's version of one China.

The "One China, with each side free to express their interpretation" formula was once the best way in dealing with the "One China" issue, said Su. It was agreed between Taipei's Strait Exchange Foundation and Beijing's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait in 1992's groundbreaking cross-strait talks.

However, he also noted, that the formula has now been denied and dismissed by Beijing as simply Taipei's interpretation of the consensus, not Beijing's understanding of it.

Su went a step further, pointing out that in the face of this dilemma, the best thing the incoming president could do is try to be ambiguous on the sensitive issue by deliberately trying not to give any precise definition to the consensus.

This, he concluded, would be tantamount to "one consensus, free interpretations," which may be beneficial to a cross-strait breakthrough. (By Eva Chen)