The PRC is not “just having a position of its own”.
IT’S PUBLICLY STATING THAT TAIWAN BELONGS TO THE PRC.
No it doesn’t. Negotiations took place in 1992 with each side satisfied with whatever statement that side made going in. It did not affect Taiwan’s sovereignty (whatever you bellieve it to be) in 1992, and will not be any different now.[/quote]
Interesting thought…
Now that I look at it, I realize that you’re promoting empty words. After all, you’re arguing that its okay to make promises as long as you don’t fulfill them.
Otherwise you’re saying that you’re satisfied with fruitless debates, as neither side gave ground in the 1992 consensus, as the KMT believes that it owns China, and the PRC believes that it owns ‘China which includes Taiwan’ so nothing has changed.
Keep making empty promises, and one day one will come bite you when you least expect it.
Wikipedia says:
But if you don’t agree with it, and have evidence for doing so, please post in the Discussion page of the article and then make your changes. As all changes are logged, don’t expect to change history unilaterally. Wikipedia has very good safe guards in place.
What promises are we talking about, ShrimpCrackers? What promises were made? The whole point of these negotiations is to resolve practical issues and to put political issues on hold. There were no promises.
The PRC is not “just having a position of its own”.
IT’S PUBLICLY STATING THAT TAIWAN BELONGS TO THE PRC.[/quote]
Yes, that’s its position.
Taiwan publicly states a lot of things like one country on each side, already independent, two states, blah blah blah. So what?
None of that has to be part of the negotiations. There is one road and one road only. Taiwan has a One China constitution. Whether it says PRC or ROC doesn’t matter to Beijing for the purpose of negotiations, as long as the magic word “China” is used. Not very difficult to understand, really.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_consensus
You keep telling people that they don’t read your posts, yet you don’t read others as well:
China specifically wants the Taiwan to negotiate on the basis that we agree to the 1992 Consensus as DEFINED BY THE CCP.
If you have evidence on the contrary, go to the discussion tab on the page and ASK FOR EVIDENCE. Those guys will hand it to you on a platter or change the remark.
The PRC is not “just having a position of its own”.
IT’S PUBLICLY STATING THAT TAIWAN BELONGS TO THE PRC.[/quote]
Yes, that’s its position.
Taiwan publicly states a lot of things. So what?[/quote]
So what?!!!
How the hell do you nurture productive cross-straights dialogue when you publicly state this position.
It’s not my job to make sure Wikipedia is accurate.
Be as it may, that’s not an inaccurate statement, because the PRC believes the 1992 Concensus was simply “One China,” that is, both sides believed there was one China, whatever else they thought about it. That is the 1992 Concensus as the PRC defines it.
It’s not “China” as PRC defines it. It’s the “1992 concensus” as the PRC defines it, which is “One China”. If you can’t tell the difference between PRC’s position on “China” vs. the concept of “One China” that transcends specific political connotation, you need help.
The PRC is not “just having a position of its own”.
IT’S PUBLICLY STATING THAT TAIWAN BELONGS TO THE PRC.[/quote]
Yes, that’s its position.
Taiwan publicly states a lot of things. So what?[/quote]
So what?!!!
How the hell do you nurture productive cross-straights dialogue when you publicly state this position.[/quote]
Go ask CSB.
[quote=“zeugmite”]It’s not my job to make sure Wikipedia is accurate.
Be as it may, that’s not an inaccurate statement, because the PRC believes the 1992 Concensus was simply “One China,” that is, both sides believed there was one China, whatever else they thought about it. That is the 1992 Concensus as the PRC defines it.
It’s not “China” as PRC defines it. It’s the “1992 concensus” as the PRC defines it. If you can’t tell the difference, you need help.[/quote]
Yes and you believe in a myth, that the PRC states that they let the matter end in a “agree to disagree”.
Read here:
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B9%9D% … 1%E8%AD%98
The 1992 Consensus, as the PRC defines it, is that the 1992 Consensus ended with the agreement that there One China, and that Taiwan is a part of China (since they claim both sides agreed to the One China Policy as defined by the PRC). The KMT have a different interpretation of what happened in the 1992 Consensus although the KMT, PFP, and the CCP see the 92 consensus generally the same, by including Taiwan as part of China . It really comes down to whom China belongs to. The KMT may say otherwise, but I believe it belongs to the CCP.
So by agreeing to the 1992 Consensus as the PRC defines is very dangerous to Taiwan’s sovereignty. Lien probably didn’t care, those kids and the Grandpa song were cute. Funny, Archaic, but innocent in a way.
No they didn’t. They just said the concensus was “One China.” The only thing different about KMT’s interpretation was seen in how the KMT summarized its own position as “One China, Different Interpretations.” That’s the Taiwan position. The One China part was common, specifically, that Taiwan and mainland both belong to “One China.” That’s all the PRC cares about anyway. The PRC says it’ll ignore the whole issue of interpretations. Taiwan said there exist multiple interpretations. The interpretations part was not part of the concensus because there were disagreements.
No they didn’t. They just said the concensus was “One China.” The only thing different about KMT’s interpretation was seen in how the KMT summarized its own position as “One China, Different Interpretations.” That’s the Taiwan position. The One China part was common, specifically, that Taiwan and mainland both belong to “One China.” That’s all the PRC cares about anyway. The PRC says it’ll ignore the whole issue of interpretations. Taiwan said there exist multiple interpretations. The interpretations part was not part of the concensus because there were disagreements.[/quote]
EXACTLY. BY AGREEING TO THE PRC INTERPRETATION IF THE 1992 CONSENSUS, we sacrifice the sovereignty of Taiwan. From your own words.
Again read:
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B9%9D% … 1%E8%AD%98
There is no myth. They did not agree to disagree. They agreed on some things and disagreed on others. The part that they agreed on was they both believed there was One China and that mainland and Taiwan were part of it, and that was the concensus. The rest they disagreed on, obviously. But the rest didn’t matter for discussions anyway.
The PRC is not “just having a position of its own”.
IT’S PUBLICLY STATING THAT TAIWAN BELONGS TO THE PRC.[/quote]
Yes, that’s its position.
Taiwan publicly states a lot of things. So what?[/quote]
So what?!!!
How the hell do you nurture productive cross-straights dialogue when you publicly state this position.[/quote]
Go ask CSB.[/quote]
No.
Go ask your comrades in China. The PRC public statement undermines the status-quo in the minds of the U.S. and Taiwan.
No they didn’t. They just said the concensus was “One China.” The only thing different about KMT’s interpretation was seen in how the KMT summarized its own position as “One China, Different Interpretations.” That’s the Taiwan position. The One China part was common, specifically, that Taiwan and mainland both belong to “One China.” That’s all the PRC cares about anyway. The PRC says it’ll ignore the whole issue of interpretations. Taiwan said there exist multiple interpretations. The interpretations part was not part of the concensus because there were disagreements.[/quote]
EXACTLY. BY AGREEING TO THE PRC INTERPRETATION IF THE 1992 CONSENSUS, we sacrifice the sovereignty of Taiwan. From your own words.
Again read:
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B9%9D% … 1%E8%AD%98[/quote]
Again, you are conflating
(1) PRC’s interpretation of the 1992 Concensus; and
(2) PRC’s interpretation of the political connotation of “China”
The part you highlighted refers to (2). The part you have in capital letters is (1).
You sacrifice nothing for (1), because PRC’s interpretation of the 1992 Concensus was simply “One China.” No, the PRC does not agree with ROC’s position on the connotation of “China,” but that wasn’t part of the concensus anyway, hence there is no PRC interpretation of it within the 1992 concensus.
[quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]
The PRC is not “just having a position of its own”.
IT’S PUBLICLY STATING THAT TAIWAN BELONGS TO THE PRC.[/quote]
Yes, that’s its position.
Taiwan publicly states a lot of things. So what?[/quote]
So what?!!!
How the hell do you nurture productive cross-straights dialogue when you publicly state this position.[/quote]
Go ask CSB.[/quote]
No.
Go ask your comrades in China. The PRC public statement undermines the status-quo in the minds of the U.S. and Taiwan.[/quote]
Same with CSB’s public statements.
There is no myth. They did not agree to disagree. They agreed on some things and disagreed on others. The part that they agreed on was they both believed there was One China and that mainland and Taiwan were part of it, and that was the concensus. The rest they disagreed on, obviously. But the rest didn’t matter for discussions anyway.[/quote]
Stop being stubborn. Lien agreed to China’s Interpretation of what happened in the 1992 consensus. And China’s interpretation was that There is One China and that Taiwan is a part of that China.
The KMT back then felt that they had proper sovereignty over China as well. Thats why it fit for both of them. What they didn’t agree upon was who had sovereignty over all over China (including Taiwan).
As a result, no real consensus was made, not even an “Agree to Disagree”. Although that has been floated as fact nowadays.
But Lien agreed to China’s mythic version and you agreed that he did that.
There is no more to argue then.
[quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]
The PRC is not “just having a position of its own”.
IT’S PUBLICLY STATING THAT TAIWAN BELONGS TO THE PRC.[/quote]
Yes, that’s its position.
Taiwan publicly states a lot of things. So what?[/quote]
So what?!!!
How the hell do you nurture productive cross-straights dialogue when you publicly state this position.[/quote]
Go ask CSB.[/quote]
No.
Go ask your comrades in China. The PRC public statement undermines the status-quo in the minds of the U.S. and Taiwan.[/quote]
… in your mind. lol[/quote]
Oh yeah! I forgot!
The U.S. has already recognized Taiwan as a territory under the control of the People’s Republic of China.
Sorry. 
There is no myth. They did not agree to disagree. They agreed on some things and disagreed on others. The part that they agreed on was they both believed there was One China and that mainland and Taiwan were part of it, and that was the concensus. The rest they disagreed on, obviously. But the rest didn’t matter for discussions anyway.[/quote]
Stop being stubborn. Lien agreed to China’s Interpretation of what happened in the 1992 consensus. And China’s interpretation was that There is One China and that Taiwan is a part of that China.[/quote]
That exact statement was in the ROC’s position almost word for word. That part was completely in agreement. Why do I need to be stubborn?
Great. Now we are getting somewhere.
You are doing a bait-and-switch right there. Yes, no concensus was made on the political connotation of China. But you are wrong that there was no concensus at all. You yourself wrote in the previous part that both believed Taiwan and the mainland belonged to one country, namely China, during this 1992 meeting, and that is indeed the idea expressed in the statements made by both sides. That is one very real and extremely substantive agreement, in fact, so substantive that TI/ers, due to ideology, must refuse it today.
[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]But Lien agreed to China’s mythic version and you agreed that he did that.
There is no more to argue then.[/quote]
What’s China’s mythic version? China’s version does not contradict Taiwan’s version at all. If anything, it is a subset of Taiwan’s version.
If I were to put snappy names on things, I would say that at the 1992 meeting, the PRC position was “One China, No Interpretations” whereas the ROC position was “One China, Multiple Interprations.” Neither position was the extreme of “One China, One Interpretation.” Furthermore, the “One China” part was in common and nobody in their right mind can deny that.
For the Nth time…
I’m not arguing that and stop trying to change the topic.
It says clearly that in his last visit to China, Lien Chan agreed to the PRC’s INTERPRETATION OF THE 92 MEETING, which under your words means “One China, No Interpretations”.
When Lien Chan agreed to the PRC’s Interpretation upon his visit to China, he basically said that Taiwan was a part of China. End of story. In the PRC’s eyes, the ROC’s stance of One China, Multiple Interpretations is dead now and merely lipservice to their constituents.