Following its establishment, between March 1992 and April 1993, on the authority of the State Council’s Taiwan Affairs Office and on the basis of adhering to the one-China principle during exchanges and routine discussions, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) carried out talks with the Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF) on the topics of “the adoption of cross-Strait notarized documents” and “setting up a cross-Strait registered mail inquiry and compensation service.” The China Notaries Association and the Professional Committee of the China Institute of Communications participated in each of the respective discussions.

During the initial talks between the two sides, the one-China principle became a prominent issue. The ARATS suggested that the one-China principle should be the basis on which the two sides carry out exchanges and discussions, and that specific issues arising in the course of cross-Strait exchanges were China’s internal affairs and should therefore be properly solved through consultation on the basis of the one-China principle. However, in accordance with a requirement of the Mainland Affairs Council, the SEF stated that it did not have the authority to discuss the one-China principle. During the talks the SEF also expressed several opinions that clearly violated the one-China principle. For example, when addressing the issue of adopting cross-Strait notarized documents, the SEF proposed that the two countries’ embassies and consulates should handle the adoption of the mainland’s notarized documents in Taiwan. While discussing the issue of setting up a cross-Strait registered postal service, the SEF also talked about “postal links between the two countries.” The Taiwan authorities’ avoidance of discussing or mentioning the one-China principle was an attempt to use the talks to achieve political aims and a way of creating two political entities on equal footing, and it complicated two originally simple and routine issues.

Facts show that to carry out cross-Strait talks, there must first be consensus on the one-China principle. Without a consensus on this, there can be no routine cross-Strait discussions. As a result, at the end of the first working-level talks between the ARATS and the SEF in March 1992, to counter the Taiwan authorities’ misinterpretation and taking into account the doubts of some of the Taiwan people, the ARATS’s executive vice-chairman Tang Shubei elaborated on the issue of adhering to the one-China principle during routine talks. Tang Shubei pointed out, first of all, that the talks should reflect reality, and that the existence of one China was an objective fact. He said that only by adhering to the one-China principle and taking into account the reality that each side has its own system, will they be able to seek truth from facts, amicably and reasonably deal with various specific issues in cross-Strait exchanges, and truly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Second, he pointed out that neither side had originally disputed the one-China principle, which could be seen from conversations between the leaders of both sides and relevant documents released by the Taiwan authorities. Therefore, both sides obviously believed in one China, and only a few officials in charge of mainland affairs from the Taiwan authorities objected to expressing that there is only one China and disagreed that both sides should deal with issues in cross-Strait exchanges on the basis of the one-China principle. Third, Tang Shubei pointed out that adhering to the one-China principle during the routine discussions had been proposed simply so that both sides could make clear their attitude of adhering to the one-China principle, and not so that the ARATS could discuss with the SEF the connotations of the one-China principle. He even went so far as to suggest that both sides could negotiate how to adhere to the one-China principle. Afterwards, Tang Shubie summarized that during cross-Strait routine talks the following points related to the one-China principle should be adhered to: specific issues in cross-Strait exchanges are the internal affairs of China and they should be discussed and resolved on the basis of the one-China principle; during routine discussions, both sides need only acknowledge that they adhere to the one-China principle and need not discuss the political connotations of the one-China principle, and the manner in which this should be acknowledged could be fully discussed and the ARATS was willing to listen to the views of the SEF and Taiwanese people from all sectors of society.

The ARATS’s reasonable stance provoked a reaction from compatriots in Taiwan, which meant the Taiwan authorities could not avoid the issue. Subsequently, a debate raged within the Taiwan authorities as to whether they should make clear their position on the one-China principle during routine talks. Following three months of discussion, on August 1, 1992, Taiwan’s National Unification Council issued its conclusion on the meaning of one China: “Both sides of the Taiwan Strait adhere to the one-China principle, but the two sides differ over the meaning ascribed to it.…Since 1949, China has been temporarily divided, with two political entities controlling the two sides of the Strait….Taiwan is a part of China, but the mainland is also part of China.” This conclusion clearly states that the Taiwan authorities, on the one hand, advocate “two political entities controlling the two sides of the Strait” and seeks the status of an “equal political entity.” On the other hand, it expresses adherence to the one-China principle and recognizes the fact that Taiwan is a part of Chinese territory. Seeing as the Taiwan authorities stated that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait adhere to the one-China policy,” on August 27, the head of the ARATS issued a statement confirming that both sides of the Taiwan Strait adhering to the one-China policy was of great significance for cross-Strait routine talks as “it shows that adhering to the one-China principle during routine talks has already become the consensus on both sides of the Strait.” In September of the same year, the secretary-generals of the ARATS and the SEF met in Macao to formally exchange views on issues relating to expressing adherence to the one-China principle. The representative from the ARATS said to the representative from the SEF that, “The Taiwan sides’ conclusion on the one-China principle explained that both sides are in consensus that they should adhere to the one-China principle during routine talks. But we do not agree with the relevant Taiwan authorities’ explanation of the connotations of there being one China, nor are we able to discuss with the SEF the connotations of there being one China.” The ARATS’s representative also recommended that the SEF seriously consider directly stating that “both sides of the Strait adhere to the one-China principle.”