My speech therefore had to be directed not just at the Taiwan people but also to those in Beijing and in the White House. Satisfying everyone was impossible, so it was enough to say something that was acceptable to the Taiwan people, found no objection within the White House and left no room for Beijing to say anything. My words about “jointly dealing with the future issues of one China” were spoken purely for the benefit of Beijing. China insists on the “one China principle” and the US advocates a “one China policy” but I believe that for the people of Taiwan, “one China” is a problem.
In my wallet is a written note from the Chinese side that I have kept for more than eight years. It shows the idea of “jointly dealing with the future issues of one China” was their suggestion. From the evolution of US policy, we saw the US would not support, and in fact would oppose, Taiwanese independence. A peaceful resolution slowly leading towards peaceful unification is very disadvantageous to Taiwan.
Some people believe that if Taiwan makes concessions to China, China will respond benignly. This is a very naive fantasy. China cannot remove the missiles it has aimed at Taiwan, just as under the “one China” principle it cannot accept separate interpretations of what one China means. China's basic attitude towards Taiwan has already been set. It cannot be changed by people in Beijing but only by the 23m people in Taiwan. I admit that I seek not just de facto independence for Taiwan but also de jure independence. Therefore the criticisms levelled at me by China and the US during my eight years in office were not groundless. Just like they said, I am a splittist. I am a seeker and practitioner of de jure independence for Taiwan.