China wants YOU! ...to protest March 12th

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

Taiwan parties call on all to join in March 12 demonstration

english.people.com.cn/200603/08/ … 48787.html

[quote=“Chinese Propaganda”]A number of political parties and organizations in Taiwan Province are planning to participate in a demonstration on March 12 to protest Chen Shui-bian’s decision to stop the operation of the “National Unification Council” and the application of the “National Unification Guidelines.”

According to the Taiwan-based “China Unification Alliance,” the organization and some other parties have issued a joint statement to call on people of different circles to join in the proposed street march next Sunday.

The statement said the sovereign rights of China’s mainland and Taiwan have belonged to the people living on the two banks of the Taiwan Straits ever since Taiwan’s return to the motherland in 1945.

The 1992 cross-Straits consensus between the two sides, which is based on the one-China principle, is the basis for cross-Straits peace, it says.

It criticizes Chen’s recent move as separatist, threatening to peace and stability, and running against the aspirations of the people of the two sides as they pursue national peace, reconciliation, harmony and cooperation.

The cessation of Taiwan’s “unification council” and “unification guidelines” rebuffs the One-China Principle, challenges all Chinese people, and represents the abduction of and fraudulence against Taiwan people, the statement continues, warning it could end Chen’s political credibility and dignity.*

The protest groups will call on Taiwan people and all organizations opposing separatism and supporting reunification to join in the anti-Chen camp, said Wang Jinping, chairman of the alliance. [/quote]

Well, there you have it. March 12th is a Pro-PRC, Pro-unification event.

Wave that flag!


* Awww. They are such a compassionate bunch!

2

I will not march, because the NUC has been defunct for six years already. I refuse to march for something that was closed because it was unable to meet with the Chinese, so was impotent, so was declared so after six years of defunctness.

3

And I have a sore ankle.

4

And from a great comedian (Mitch Hedberg)

“I’d like to protest the protestors, but I don’t know how to show it.”

5

I noticed the article mentions the “1992 consensus,” although it’s only quoting the Taiwan groups’ statement. Has China ever officially acknowledged that there actually was a 1992 consensus, and clarified what exactly it was? Have they ever acknowledged the possibility of different interpretations of the “One China” principle? I’m a little confused by the conflicting claims.

6

Well, I think their current interpretation of the “one-china” principle leaves little in the way of wiggle-room.

As I posted earlier:

[quote]Premier Su Tseng-chang yesterday rejected as unacceptable a draft development plan by China that describes the island as an inseparable part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

“It is unacceptable for our country to be called a part of the PRC. We are not its local government, nor are we subject to the PRC,” Premier Su told the legislature.

“Unification with China is not the only option for Taiwan.”

His comment came after China unveiled Sunday in its National People’s Congress assembly meeting a draft plan to promote Chinese economic and social development.

In its mentioning of Taiwan, the draft plan describes the island as a part of the PRC - the official title of the Chinese government - and also a sacred territory that is inseparable from China.[/quote]

7

[quote=“STOP_Ma”]Well, there you have it. March 12th is a Pro-PRC, Pro-unification event.

Wave that flag! [/quote]

Back in the day, the PRC issued many a statement supporting the civil rights movement in the US, so was the civil rights movement a pro-PRC, pro-communist event? Certainly some in the US believed it was organized by communists.

Further back in the day, the PRC issued many a statement supporting the rebels of 228 – thugs and all – so was 228 a pro-PRC, pro-unification event? Certainly CKS thought so.

So take your pick of yes and no answers. Have fun!

8

Beijing has been pretty clear that it now accepts just about any interpretation of the very broad, very general “One China” principal.

From the carefully written Hu Jintao/Lien Chan agreement issued upon their meeting last year in Beijing:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4498791.stm

[quote]
The two parties agreed as follows:

It is the common proposition of the two parties to uphold the “Consensus of '92”, oppose “Taiwan independence”, pursue peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, promote the development of cross-strait ties, and safeguard the interests of compatriots on both sides of the strait. …[/quote]

As far as Beijing’s more liberal attitudes towards “One China”, foreign minister Qiao Qichen was telling the Washington Post five years ago that anything could be discussed as part of the unification negotiations… including a new national title, a new national flag. The “One China” formulation that insists China = PRC has been long discarded.

9

cctang:

Apparently you missed the new memo, or ‘meme’, as it were.

10

[quote=“STOP_Ma”]cctang:

Apparently you missed the new memo, or ‘meme’, as it were.[/quote]

Yes. This is a notable change of language. With the latest TI moves to officially disown the 1992 Concensus and the NUC, the compromise of ambiguity is dead on Taiwan’s side, so the PRC responded in kind.

11

[quote=“zeugmite”]

Back in the day, the PRC issued many a statement supporting the civil rights movement in the US, so was the civil rights movement a pro-PRC, pro-communist event? Certainly some in the US believed it was organized by communists.

Further back in the day, the PRC issued many a statement supporting the rebels of 228 – thugs and all – so was 228 a pro-PRC, pro-unification event? Certainly CKS thought so.[/quote]

What?! Your getting very…um…creative with your arguments, zeugmite.

Firstly, both groups had nothing to do with wanting to be annexed by China. Secondly, China was not threatening to annex the U.S. in the mid 20th century and the 228 rebellion had nothing to do with the “unification” issue.

12

[quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]cctang:

Apparently you missed the new memo, or ‘meme’, as it were.[/quote]

Yes. This is a notable change of language. With the latest TI moves to officially disown the 1992 Concensus and the NUC, the compromise of ambiguity is dead on Taiwan’s side, so the PRC responded in kind.[/quote]

It was in the anti-secession law as well, albeit less explicit.

What’s more, considering that Taiwan is a “democracy” and considering that Ma Ying-jeou is the favorite as being the next president, does it not seem a bit “extreme” (or stupid) that the PRC would change this language knowing full well that Ma Ying-jeou will re-establish this organization?

Or was it the “true” sentiment of the PRC all along?

13

No, it’s not. The “memo” doesn’t represent a change of language or policy. The draft plan mentioned discusses proposed reforms for mainland China. It’s not issued by the foreign ministry, the Taiwan Affairs Office, or anyone else involved with cross-strait affairs. It was a cursory mention of Taiwan, and I’m sure the authors just chose to summarize the safe, traditional representation of Taiwan.

Beijing’s policies towards cross-strait relations aren’t set out through ambiguous statements, nor are they changed flippantly. If/when they change, they will be articulated clearly and firmly through every channel you can imagine.

14

[quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“zeugmite”]

Back in the day, the PRC issued many a statement supporting the civil rights movement in the US, so was the civil rights movement a pro-PRC, pro-communist event? Certainly some in the US believed it was organized by communists.

Further back in the day, the PRC issued many a statement supporting the rebels of 228 – thugs and all – so was 228 a pro-PRC, pro-unification event? Certainly CKS thought so.[/quote]

What?! Your getting very…um…creative with your arguments, zeugmite.

Firstly, both groups had nothing to do with wanting to be annexed by China. Secondly, China was not threatening to annex the U.S. in the mid 20th century and the 228 rebellion had nothing to do with the “unification” issue.[/quote]
Since when does the pan-blue want to be annexed by China? Once again, what you wish to be true is not true.

As for 228, you are right. There was no unification issue in 1947 because all provinces including Taiwan were a part of China (ROC) then and a civil was going on that would later result in a part of China under one government’s rule and another part under another government’s rule. Precisely which parts were which were still being fought out then.

15

No, it’s not. The “memo” doesn’t represent a change of language or policy. The draft plan mentioned discusses proposed reforms for mainland China. It’s not issued by the foreign ministry, the Taiwan Affairs Office, or anyone else involved with cross-strait affairs. It was a cursory mention of Taiwan, and I’m sure the authors just chose to summarize the safe, traditional representation of Taiwan.

Beijing’s policies towards cross-strait relations aren’t set out through ambiguous statements, nor are they changed flippantly. If/when they change, they will be articulated clearly and firmly through every channel you can imagine.[/quote]
cctang, it was just articulated again by foreign minister Li Zhaoxing. I believe the change of language is official. I don’t say it’s a change of policy though. Every side has its own policy whether articulated or not, like the Taiwan’s policy is TI. But language is important, because that shows how much ambiguity you are willing to allow for a potential compromise.

Since Taiwan doesn’t want any compromise or ambiguity and has repeatedly stated its uncompromising TI stance, this is the result to it. I doubt this can mean anything good. I think CSB is forcing the endgame to be played earlier than he or anyone wants.

16

‘Albeit’?

The anti-secession law made absolutely no claim that “One China” = the People’s Republic of China. The text of the ASL is very explicit on many points, and the omission is very significant.

Article 2 There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

I don’t know how this is on topic for this thread, but the facts are obvious and clear. Beijing’s policy towards reunification, at this point, is that the People’s Republic of China does not represent the “national” government that the Taiwanese government would have to be subservient to. ANY political solution is on the table as long as Taiwan agrees there’s only one China, and Taiwan agrees it can not be independent from that one China.

This is a huge point of agreement between the KMT, the PFP, the NP, and the CCP.

17

[quote=“zeugmite”]
cctang, it was just articulated by foreign minister Li Zhaoxing. I believe the change of language is official. I don’t say it’s a change of policy though. Every side has its own policy whether articulated or not, like the Taiwan’s policy is TI. But language is important, because that shows how much ambiguity you are willing to allow for a potential compromise.[/quote]
I’ve read Li Zhaoxing’s comments, and he didn’t articulate anything that represents a back-step from the “One China” policy stated last spring. He said nothing about “One China” equating to the People’s Republic of China, which was the original intrepretation back in 1992. Be sure to study this carefully before jumping to conclusions.

18

duplicate

19

MAC reiterates Taiwan’s sovereignty

I guess the 1992 consensus can go to hell, huh?!

20

[quote=“cctang”]The anti-secession law made absolutely no claim that “One China” = the People’s Republic of China. The text of the ASL is very explicit on many points, and the omission is very significant.

I don’t know how this is on topic for this thread, but the facts are obvious and clear. Beijing’s policy towards reunification, at this point, is that the People’s Republic of China does not represent the “national” government that the Taiwanese government would have to be subservient to. ANY political solution is on the table as long as Taiwan agrees there’s only one China, and Taiwan agrees it can not be independent from that one China.

This is a huge point of agreement between the KMT, the PFP, the NP, and the CCP.[/quote]

cctang:

It’s ambiguous. But anyone with half a wit knows that “China” has meant “the PRC”. TIers or no TIers.

And when presenting the draft of the ASL, isn’t it interesting how this exact phrase that is being used now crept into play:

zeugmite – the PRC did not just “react” to the NUC. This was their intention all along. It’s time you faced that fact.