Date: February 2, 1994 
Place: Beijing 

Yesterday, I met with Mr. Tang and Mr. Zou for general discussions on the topics of this meeting. Consensus was reached in principle, and I hope that on this basis we can arrive at something more specific during the ongoing discussions today. 

1. SEF-ARATS Affairs 

(1) A consensus was reached yesterday on the final principles for the "measures to facilitate the entry and exit of SEF and ARATS personnel." It was decided that the two sides would mutually grant the convenience of issuing and holding certificates for the entry and exit of certain SEF and ARATS personnel; facilitate customs inspection and clearance for personnel at or above the director-general or director level; and provide various conveniences to accompanying SEF and ARATS staff and other accompanying personnel with approval. Naturally these measures apply to system of contacts and meetings between the SEF and ARATS and are therefore limited to talks and negotiations on functional issues. Today, I hope we can finalize the content of the text. 

(2) As to the manner of assistance and response on inquiry items and the terms to be used on related documents, this can be further discussed at the working meeting. 
The two sides have agreed in principle to expand the scope of mailed certificate of authentication copies. The specific types of documents to be included, calculation of verification fees, and other related matters can be further discussed at the working meeting. 

2. Routine Negotiations 

Yesterday, the two sides exchanged general views on the difficulties faced in routine negotiations. It was agreed that during such negotiations sensitive political issues should be avoided and that there should be flexibility for each side to make its own formulations. On this principle, we hope that today's discussions will help resolve various bottlenecks. 

(1) Repatriation of illegal immigrants 

A. At present the most important issue is the difficulty of the mainland side in receiving repatriated persons, which has led to problems in handling such cases. Therefore, we are willing to proactively dispatch boats to return illegal immigrants and hope that this point may be recognized.

B. Regarding the issue of costs, there are numerous items involved. Therefore, we hope to discuss how to rationally allocate these costs. We have a calculation method and can also further discuss this at the working meeting. 

C. The proposal to limit repatriation to persons that have violated relevant laws on both sides, and the matter of local inspection by the other side both involve sensitive political issues that we wish to avoid. 

(2) Repatriation of hijackers 

A. The two sides have reached a consensus on the issue of which side should prosecute and punish cross-strait hijackers. In principle, prosecution and punishment will be handled by the side to which the involved aircraft belongs. However, under certain circumstances, repatriation may be refused based on mutual respect or humanitarian principles. 
The two sides also have reached and committed in writing a consensus that repatriation should be handled in accordance with humanitarian principles and implemented in writing. Consensus was also reached on the principles of non-repatriation of the people of one's own side and avoidance of double indemnity. However, the two sides were unable to commit this to writing. 

B. Non-repatriation of people of one's own side (or non-extradition of nationals)

The Taiwan side believes that the formulation of "illegal entry to the area of the other side" in the Kinmen Accord accords with the positions of the two sides. I therefore hope that Mr. Tang will reconsider the mainland side's originally proposed concept of "place of residence," which is likely to involve sensitive issues and boundary-related difficulties. Therefore, the usage of "people of one's own side" is a usage the preserves flexibility in the separate formulations of each side. 

C. Avoiding double indemnity

In order to prevent reduplicated fines or judgements in the same case, the Taiwan side proposes that "repatriation may be refused when a judicial process is already underway by a judicial body for the same case or other criminal action." This clause is proposed on the one hand to provide jurisdictional flexibility in exceptional cases, such as a case in which a hijacker murders a person the Taiwan area. This would also resolve questions in past cases over whether repatriation is allowed (the judiciary would decide on whether or not to repatriate the criminal). 

D. Retroactive implementation of the agreement

Previously we have believed that the matter of whether or not to pursue repatriation of hijackers should not be fixed, but rather be determined on a case-by-case basis by the judiciary. The mainland side has proposed that a retroactive provision be stipulated in the agreement. However, this involves the issue of double indemnity. We therefore believe that a suitable arrangement should be reached on reduction or exemption from prison terms or terms of detention. This would accord with statutes on the Taiwan side and criminal law on the mainland side. I hope that Mr. Tang will carefully consider this. As to stipulations on time, we can only resolve the deadline issue. We still need to wait to see if the judiciary agrees. We are also unable to resolve issues pertaining to the refusal of repatriation. 

(5) Applicable criminal types

Hijacking is a type of criminal offense and the repatriation standards in such cases can be applied to repatriation in general criminal cases for the sake of simplicity. Yesterday, Mr. Tang also noted that hijackers are criminals. Therefore, we ask that Mr. Tang to consider this issue. 

(3) Handling of fishing disputes

The two sides are in consensus that fishing disputes should be handled on the basis of the "principle of non-violence. The biggest difference now pertains to the approach and efficacy of mediation. The mainland side has proposed the formation of a fishing dispute coordination body for "consultation and handling." It has also suggested that mediation results "be practically implemented by effective measures adopted by each side." We believe that each side should establish a mediation body for "joint mediation," and that the two sides should agree that the mediation outcome be implementable. The differences between the two sides on this issue are narrowing and we hope to narrow them further still. However, we also emphasize that the SEF and ARATS should mediate disputes from an impartial position and not get involved in cases in which there is a conflict of interest. This is the only way to realize the intermediary function of the two organizations. 

3. Economic Exchanges

Mr. Tang has said that he has not excluded the possibility of the SEF and ARATS signing an agreement on protecting the investments of Taiwanese businesspeople in mainland China. We hope that we can talk more specifically on this point. We also believe that during the talks we can exchange views on other issues related to business exchange visits and the import of mainland products. 

4. Cultural, Educational Scientific and Technological Exchanges 

We hope that we can discuss ways to arrange visits by media executives to the mainland and reporter exchange visits. We also hope during these talks or the working meeting to express some of our views on highly sensitive issues relating to cross-strait cultural exchanges, such as designations. 

5. Conclusion

During today's talks, we hope to focus on communicating concepts on SEF-ARATS affairs. We hope that we can find a way to resolve issues in a manner that considers the views of both sides and is truly effective. We can decide on how to divide the groups based on the outcome of today's talks.