Did the authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait previously reach a consensus regarding the "one-China principle"? This major question has incited a fierce dispute between the governments on either side of the Taiwan Sea during the last year. Furthermore, the problem has already spread to Taiwan's domestic political scene, and the confrontations there between supporters of each side are no less passionate than those between Taiwan and mainland China.
Enticing the Republic of China to bring itself to an end:
Since October of 1949, when the Chinese Communist Party established the People's Republic of China (PRC) in mainland China and the KMT's Republic of China (ROC) retreated to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, it has been 50 years that the two Chinese regimes have separately ruled opposite sides of the Taiwan Strait. Based on my experience working on Taiwan affairs since 1947, the CCP's original bringing forth of this "one China" mantra was a blatant political ploy to entice the ROC to bring itself to an end, given that it couldn't be thoroughly eradicated by military action. Therefore the current struggle between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait over the "one China" problem actually relates to a major question: the survival of the ROC.
So is it really the case, as the CCP authorities in Beijing insist, that, "a consensus has been reached already"?
To insist on this consensus, the CCP authorities have distorted history to mislead the KMT's middle-aged generation and other political parties in Taiwan. CCP officials often say, "The old leaders among your authorities in Taiwan were also unswerving in their insistence on `one China' and opposition to `two Chinas.' This is a position reached early on that is consistent with the viewpoint of our leaders." They use this to prove a historical basis for the claim that their so-called "1992 meeting between Wang Daohan (
Chiang Kai-shek opposed "two Chinas":
Quite right. In Feb. 1955, then-KMT chairman Chiang Kai-shek (
However, several days later, Chiang Kai-shek held a press conference for local and foreign reporters, once again criticizing the UN's cease-fire proposal. First and foremost, he solemnly declared that there is only one China, and it is the ROC, saying the KMT would never relinquish its right to retake the mainland. From this we see that Chiang Kai-shek's opposition to "two Chinas" was precisely his insistence that "one China" is the ROC. He refuted the legal status of communist China in the mainland and didn't come to any "consensus" with the communist government that the PRC was "one China."
Taiwan returned
In an internal discussion that took place in October of 1959, Mao did in fact also say the following: "At the time of World War II, China was one of the allied nations. According to the stipulations of the Cairo conference attended by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Chiang Kai-shek, Taiwan was returned to China from Japanese control. Taiwan belonged to China in the first place. Japan temporarily occupied it. After the Japanese lost, it was returned to China. After Chiang Kai-shek lost (author's note: referring to the civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists in 1949), he ran to Taiwan and established a government there. All over the world there are still many countries that have diplomatic relations with the authorities in Taiwan. We oppose `two Chinas.' Chiang Kai-shek also opposes `two Chinas.' We have points on which we agree."
Mao and Chiang each insist on their own "one China":
In this passage of Mao Zedong's words, we see the following: First, he had to recognize the requirement that Taiwan be returned to China as required by the Cairo declaration signed by Chiang Kai-shek, Roosevelt, and Churchill in November of 1943. At that time, the agreement could only have meant the ROC, that "one China." Second, he was forced to recognize that after Chiang Kai-shek lost the mainland in 1949 and retreated to Taiwan, he once again established a government. This government is precisely the government of the ROC that now exists independently in Taiwan, solidly seated in the western Pacific. Third, he was also forced to admit that "we oppose `two Chinas' and Chiang Kai-shek also opposes `two Chinas'." The essential meaning of these words is that Mao was insisting on the PRC as "one China", and Chiang was insisting on the ROC as "one China." Each side insisted on its own "one China" and refuted the other side's exclusive I-exist-and-you-don't "one China." Therefore, Mao's so-called "having points on which we agree" is in fact the same as the "one China, with each side having its own interpretation (
As I recall from my experience, the first ones to use "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" as a way to create an international "consensus" were the US and the PRC.
One China, separate interpretations is most appropriate:
Please take a look at the "1972 Joint US-China Communique from Shanghai" (
After the Shanghai Communique, I went to Beijing and met with Vice Minister Qiao Guanhua (喬冠華) from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1948 when I was working at Xinhua in Hong Kong, he was the highest of the old leaders -- ?the director of the CCP's Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong. When we spoke of the Shanghai Communique, Qiao Guanhua told me that the most important and also the most difficult part of the communique was the section in which we demanded that the US take a stand in support of "one China." The problem was that the US still recognized the ROC as the "one China." It had maintained foreign relations with the ROC for 60 years and at that time still had diplomatic ties. Thus Kissinger wrote three drafts of a position on the "one China" issue, and all three were refuted by our side.
The impasse continued until the day before the communique was to be released, that is, 10pm Feb. 26, 1972, when Kissinger spoke to Qiao over the phone, saying, "The US side declares: The US acknowledges ..." Qiao requested that Kissinger repeat his statement three times, and then he read back an English transcript of the statement to Kissinger for confirmation. After getting the OK, Qiao immediately called Zhou Enlai (周恩來) to report. Zhou said, "It looks all right to me. Doctor Kissinger is worthy of his PhD." Zhou then reported to Mao immediately. Mao said, "Good enough! Let's write it as he suggested. Kissinger knows how to smooth things over too. Let's accept his proposal." Later, in internal discussions, Mao said, "That's right. The Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait say there is just one China. Our `one China' is the PRC. Chairman Chiang's `one China' is the ROC. We want to unify Taiwan. Taiwan wants to recover the mainland. Whichever side succeeds, in the end it will be `one China'! And Kissinger says, `The United States government does not challenge that position.' Fine. Then we can call it a `Joint US-China Communique'."
The PRC disregards the Joint US-China Communique:
Now, recalling the perception that Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and Qiao Guanhua had of this passage regarding the "one China" statement by Nixon and Kissinger on the US side, is it not precisely a "consensus" on "one China, with each side having its own interpretation"? But now the leaders of the PRC insist on the principle that "one China" is the PRC, refusing to accept the idea of "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" arrived at in the US-(Communist) China agreement. Does this not violate the "consensus" of the Shanghai Communique? Does it not disregard the strategic thinking and policy direction developed to handle cross-strait relations by Communist China's first generation of leaders, Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai?
Kim is former editor-in-chief of Hong Kong's Wen Wei Po (
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations