Yes, and you can expect a Nobel Peace Prize nomination next year.
Yes, but achieving this may prove harder than reunification or Taiwan independence
Probably not, but there’s a shot
No, because China would never allow it
No, because it’s one of the most insipid ideas I’ve ever heard
What I’m suggesting here is not ideal. But it may be a way to allow normalized relationships between Taiwan, China, and the rest of the world without anyone having to lose too much.
China cannot allow Taiwan to claim independence. They have staked far too much politically on reunification. Their rhetoric has been loud and the foreign policy predicated on a One China Policy. They’ve used strong arm tactics to force other governments to agree to the One China Policy. Giving that up would make them lose too much face, and would be disastrous to the government of the PRC.
But they are faced with a situation that is not appealing and damaging to their domestic and economic interests. The people of Taiwan do not generally want any sort of reunification. The US and other powers present a formidable military and economic obstacle in terms of acheiving their goals. Even conquering Taiwan through military stratagem could end up in giving them another situation like Tibet, prolonged strained relations with the global community, and likely an underground resistance movement.
Taiwan cannot give up its government without risking losing basic freedoms after a hundred years, and it can’t declare independence without risking war.
Abide by the One China Policy, but be independent: One China, Two Countries. Or perhaps- One China, Two Republics. The resolution would have the following basic premises:
Taiwan is part of China
The People’s Republic of China is part of China
Taiwan is not the People’s Republic of China
The PRC is not Taiwan
Taiwan and the PRC are inseparable, but mutually autonomous
The people of the PRC are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice (as it is now)
The people of Taiwan are ruled by the will of their people by the government of their choice
All of China is united by consent of all parties for the protection and benefit of its people
Basically, China will be like the European Union. Multiple sovereign states under a single umbrella. Taiwan could recognize China’s (not the PRC’s) authority in the same way that Australia recognizes the Queen of England. Perhaps the figurehead equivalent would be “Heaven”.
As part of this arrangement there would need to be a tangible re-unification. Below are some suggested ways that they can unify:
Military treaty: Taiwan and the PRC as part of China are natural allies and this allegiance comes before any other consideration. An attack on either party will result in the immediate response from the other.
Economic cohesion: While an immediate merger of the two economies would likely be disastrous, steps could be taken to begin a merger. The first would be the use of a common currency: The Chinese Yuan.
Flag: While Taiwan and the PRC will have their own national flags, they would both adopt a united Chinese flag that would fly at equal height with their national flags.
United Delegation: When China participates in international events, Taiwan and PRC representatives will act together, even when their viewpoints on an issue differ.
Embassies: Chinese embassies will provide services from both mainland the PRC and Taiwan. Compartmentalized services, but you’d go to the same place for visits to either country.
[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]Whats the difference between this and a “Asian Union”, why should it exclude anyone else. And will China give up its currency or will we all be forced to use Chinese currency?
This sounds suspiciously like a dressed up version of One Country, Two Systems.[/quote]
Basically, this would be an Asian Union, except it would only include two nations: ROC and PRC. The purpose of the setup would be to normalize relations among a relatively homogenous people.
The key difference I’m suggesting is that the PRC will not be sovereign over Taiwan. The PRC will not have any right to pass laws in Taiwan or have any oversight of Taiwan’s government-- just as Taiwan would not of the PRC.
The idea is that it will be enough of what each side wants to be able to work. Taiwan is independent of the PRC and Taiwan is part of China.
As far as I can see, your proposal sounds like the confederation proposal that used to be Lien Chan’s grand vision. Now he’s stopped talking about it altogether because Beijing won’t have any of it. You see, what Beijing want is a legal formula vague enough to leave a door open to demolish the “other” system in this “one country, two system” or any similar setup. They will never recognize anything that closes that door. They will never allow any authority over and above the PRC that runs such a confederation, even though they would like the Taiwanese to believe otherwise. The PRC Constitution says clearly that Taiwan is a part of the PRC.
Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People’s Republic of China. It is the lofty duty of the entire Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland.[/quote]
PS: I’ve made some minor edits to this post. They shouldn’t affect the discussion much.
China doesn’t play by the rules and do not honor agreements. They have already violated on numerous occasions the 50 years of sovereignty granted to HK after 1997. They violated that in the first few years.
Until China is democratic there should be no talk other than about China becoming more free with new laws and a new constitution. To talk about any sort of union before that is extremely dangerous.
Yeah, Right! Exactly when and how do the people of China exercise their will and choose their government? By what mechanism do the people of China express ANY dissatisfaction with their government ?[/quote]
I know the Chinese people have no say in their government. The PRC claims to be the voice of the people, to derive their authority from the people from the time of their communist revolution. Reality does not match that fact. But number 6 has the reflecting the PRC’s stance in mind, not reflecting reality.
[quote=“Hobart”]China doesn’t play by the rules and do not honor agreements. They have already violated on numerous occasions the 50 years of sovereignty granted to HK after 1997. They violated that in the first few years.
Until China is democratic there should be no talk other than about China becoming more free with new laws and a new constitution. To talk about any sort of union before that is extremely dangerous.[/quote]
There’s more than one way at looking at this, though. The 50 years is not 50 years of sovereignty, but of autonomy. 2nd, it is also supposed to be a transition time to gradually incorporate Hong Kong into the rest of China without a sudden shift in administration. It’s not that the PRC is totally shut out of Hong Kong and have no say or influence.
The National People’s Congress has made interpretations of the Basic Law and the people of Hong Kong have felt betrayed over this, but in truth China has honored their agreement. In most cases where there was a question on meaning in the Basic Law the HK government has looked to the NPC.
I lived in HK before the turnover and for 1 year after it. I don’t see that much has changed. Squabbling over minor details (e.g. “does a replacement Chief Executive just finish out an old term or get elected to a whole new term?”) is not breaking faith.
I think the present situation, with the threat of violent takeover and the political stonewalling Taiwan faces on the international scene, a unity along the lines of the EU is far less dangerous.
You’re probably right. I don’t think China will go for my suggestion. But I think what I’m saying may be more palatable than what Lien proposed (I’m unfamiliar with it) since the rhetoric may be more acceptably worded.
As for the PRC constitution, since when has that meant anything? Perhaps there would be a need to get around that.
In HK, I have a list somewhere if I can find it, of all of the ways that China has betrayed their promises. One that comes to mind is freedom of the press (They are not allowed to write about Taiwan that goes against the Xinhua Propaganda), also many truthfulk editors have been canned (SCMP Editor in Chief), also I think FaLung Gong is no longer welcome in HK. The interpretation of the law is no small matter. That was a breach of their promise.
Please research some more. Look more closely. I will try to find the list I have made or research and make a new. Can someone else help me out.
I wrote my earlier post in a hurry. Now, after taking a closer look at Pui’s proposal, I see why Juba and Tetsuo responded the way they did.
Basically, China will be like the European Union. Multiple sovereign states under a single umbrella. Taiwan could recognize China’s (not the PRC’s) authority in the same way that Australia recognizes the Queen of England. Perhaps the figurehead equivalent would be “Heaven”. [/quote]
The EU and the British Commonwealth are two compeletely different ideas.
There’s no Chinese “queen” that Taiwan can recognize – unless Hu Jitao decides to dress up as a drag queen.
The Mandate of Heaven is a Medieval idea, and you know the guy with the bigger stick had that mandate. The Communists don’t believe in Heaven anyway. They only believe in their own Panchen Lama reincarnate.
To address those points as I understand his suggestion:
Yes, they are different ideas - that doesn’t mean different points of each couldn’t be integrated in a new system though.
This one I see as a problem too - who’s the head of state of China but not of the PRC? The Queen is the head of state of England first and the rest of the Commonwealth second.
I think he was being facetious on the “Heaven” thing.
Basically I think that, with tweaking, it could work. Unfortunately I firmly believe it will never fly, simply because the issue at hand has nothing to do with logic or reason. Neither side gives a crap about anything that makes sense, they just want to get their own way, whatever that may be at the time.
You’ve gotta be kidding. In some ways, the PRC Constitution is an even bigger stick than the Anti-Secession Law as far as Taiwan is concerned.
I’m not saying these laws will compel the Beijing apparatchiks to do anything. They are just some sticks that you keep under your table so you can pull them out and hit the other guy anytime you want. The lawlessness of the apparatchiks does not necessarily translate into toothlessness for their laws.
There’s no way you can get around these things. Before they are changed or revoked, you can’t negotiate at all. You can only capitulate.
Funny how when most Taiwanese seem to agree with them, people on here say “The voice of the people must be heard…democracy, etc.”, but then the Taiwanese seem to support something they don’t, it’s “they’re just stupid”.