Other PRC scholar - officials expressed Beijing's intent to set in place a "one China framework" as a precondition of any "peace agreement" and to "legalize the one China principle" in order to "clarify the requirement to oppose Taiwan independence."For those Taiwan watchers who have followed events here closely, there has been a steady consensus that the One China Principle was always a 'trap-door' and that the KMT's adherence to the fictional 1992 Consensus was playing with fire since Beijing had never agreed to the 'different conceptions' which Su Chi and KMT disingenuously claimed created the political space for rapprochement between Taiwan and China.
Faced with protests from even pro-KMT scholars that the "one China principle" cannot be accepted by Taiwan's people and that the existence of "Republic of China' should be respected, China Academy of Social Sciences Taiwan Research Institute Director Yu Keli stated that the "one China principle" had been jointly formulated by the KMT and CCP to block "Taiwan independence forces in the island" from splitting Taiwan away from China and said "I am a little shocked that now there are still some KMT friends who raise opposing views."
Moreover, the PRC delegation intoned that acceptance of Beijing's "one China principle" was a "precondition" to any "peace agreement," that there could be no possibility of a "legal existence" of the ROC and that only a "Taiwan consciousness" that did not consider Taiwan to be a distinct state was permissible.
The PRC delegation clearly punctured Ma's quasi-religious faith that the so-called "Consensus of 1992" meant "one China with separate expressions" and would offer sufficient flexibility to tolerate the KMT's retention of the fig leaf for its "legal tradition," namely that "one China" meant "the Republic of China."The president's (Ma Ying-jeou) repeated claims that nine cross-strait agreements signed since last July did not affect Taiwan's sovereignty and that proposed "economic cooperation framework agreement" will "only involve economics" has displayed a wilful blindness of the fact, affirmed by PRC delegates, that the resumption of cross-strait talks was predicated on the assumption of power by the KMT and its acceptance of the "one China principle."
But the blunt statements by Zheng, an authoritative associate of the CCP general secretary, constituted a declaration that tacit acquiescence of the "one China principle" will not be sufficient for talks on a "peace agreement."
Now, to no-one's surprise, it appears that China has no intention whatsoever of accommodating the ROC within a peace agreement but rather seek to annex the polity in a manner that mirrors Chinese resumption of control of Hong Kong and Macau.
