I’m sorry, you don’t seem to be looking at the PRC line carefully. The PRC has never said it agrees to “one China, different interpretations.” That’s just the KMT line, not the PRC line.
The PRC says they agree to the 1992 consensus, but they’ve never said the 1992 consensus equals “one China, different interpretations.” I dare you to show me any report or statement from any official Chinese media (Xinhua, China Daily, People’s Daily) that says this.
The only equation I’ve seen on PRC media is:
1992 consensus = one China (plain and simple).
This sure gives Beijing more room to maneuver, not Taipei.
I’m sorry, you don’t seem to be looking at the PRC line carefully. The PRC has never said it agrees to “one China, different interpretations.” That’s just the KMT line, not the PRC line.
The PRC says they agree to the 1992 consensus, but they’ve never said the 1992 consensus equals “one China, different interpretations.” I dare you to show me any report or statement from any official Chinese media (Xinhua, China Daily, People’s Daily) that says this.
The only equation I’ve seen on PRC media is:
1992 consensus = one China (plain and simple).
This sure gives Beijing more room to maneuver, not Taipei.[/quote]
If you read what I wrote carefully, you’ll note that I said that’s what (Taiwan) at least needs to fuzzify its position to. China does not reject that there are different interpretations nor the right for Taiwan to have its description of “One China Different Interpretations” as the idea from the 1992 meeting. This is acknowledgement of the existence of different interpretations, not of the particular side’s interpretation itself, so of course it does not come out and take the other side’s position. But having different interpretations is nothing taboo and is discussed very widely. Just do a google search restricted to .cn domains on 一中各表. If you believe People’s Daily is the gold standard for government position (which I argue is not, but whatever), then it certainly has plenty of articles that talk about the meaning of the 1992 meeting, for example, this interview:
Again, I will remind you of the notion of “tolerate ROC, but not accept it” vs. “no tolerance for independence.” This is the value associated with “one China.”
Funny how this brings us back to the issue of leaving a legal door open to legitimize the demolition of the Taipei government or the invasion of Taiwan. You are asking Taiwan to count on the good faith of Beijing instead of any solid promise. Hmmmm …
Anyway, it’s been good chatting on this thread coz it gives me a better understanding of how the two sides are thinking.
Yeah China’s credit is kind of shoddy after seeing how well they kept their promise with the KMT or Hong Kong, or in almost any other matter. Bad.
Zeugmite is always saying TIers don’t like negotiation. I’m sorry but President Chen has invited China for talks the last 5 years to no avail because China has an unrealistic precondition to talks. It would seem more like that the PRC is afraid of writing things down on paper.
[quote=“Levitator”]Funny how this brings us back to the issue of leaving a legal door open to legitimize the demolition of the Taipei government or the invasion of Taiwan. You are asking Taiwan to count on the good faith of Beijing instead of any solid promise. Hmmmm …
Anyway, it’s been good chatting on this thread coz it gives me a better understanding of how the two sides are thinking.[/quote]
How’s that different from now? Taiwan is counting on the good faith in “peaceful reunification” for 30 years now, and on the good faith of not attacking it.
Yeah China’s credit is kind of shoddy after seeing how well they kept their promise with the KMT or Hong Kong, or in almost any other matter. Bad.
Zeugmite is always saying advocates of Taiwan independence don’t like negotiation. I’m sorry but President Chen has invited China for talks the last 5 years to no avail because China has an unrealistic precondition to talks. It would seem more like that the PRC is afraid of writing things down on paper.[/quote]
As if Chen doesn’t set preconditions like independence from China…
The way I see it with these things, if you are so blind that you don’t trust anything PRC says, don’t trust anything PRC does, don’t trust anything PRC promises, then what the fuck is there to talk about? It’s a religion at that point.
Haha that must be one of the worst and weakest arguments you’ve setup so far. Everyone knows China’s preconditions are exactly the reasons why talks recently have not gone through.
Anyway yeah, if you’re a known liar its time to build up credit and show some honesty. But that is difficult considering that China has basically torn the basic law of Hong Kong and then tells Taiwan that we should gladly accept the same.
[quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]Haha that must be one of the worst and weakest arguments you’ve setup so far. Everyone knows China’s preconditions are exactly the reasons why talks recently have not gone through.
Anyway yeah, if you’re a known liar its time to build up credit and show some honesty. But that is difficult considering that China has basically torn the basic law of Hong Kong and then tells Taiwan that we should gladly accept the same.[/quote]
As long as you spill shit like this stuff about Hong Kong, you are not worth responding to. So off you go on the ignore list.[/quote]
YAY I win, since Hong Kong’s Basic Law being violated is backed by fact and popular knowledge, not your favorite; propoganda.
At least this time you aren’t resorting to personal insults, everytime you lose an argument you tend to do that. I remember last time you went kabitz, it wasn’t making you look pretty.
[quote=“Levitator”]Now let’s see. A name does make a huge difference “legitimacy-wise,” not military-wise. A confederation very much makes it illegal, while one country, two systems as China has it now makes it perfectly legal to demolish the Taipei government or even invade Taiwan. Not that it will make any difference to PRC intentions, if there’s any, to invade or demolish Taipei. But it does make a huge difference in terms of face, at the UN.
Politcal and military equations change from one year to the next, but what’s written on an agreement is much harder to change. That’s why they are important.[/quote]
Right, so in order to be acceptable to advocates of independence, the agreement must not allow the PRC to have any legal means to force an occupation of Taiwan or bypass the government of Taiwan. The PRC cannot be above Taiwan as it is with Hong Kong.
Whether or not China would let “One Country, Two Systems” work without eventually trying to eliminate the other system is debatable. The lack of faith in Beijing among people in Taiwan is not. So, in order for Taiwanese to be satisfied they’ll need to get a clear delineation that the government in Taipei or whoever is elected by the people of Taiwan is the soveriegn ruler of Taiwan, co-sovereign with Beijing over their share of China. Not the Trinity, but the Duality, to borrow yet another concept. (Perhaps we can borrow some of the wording from the Nicean creed to keep things obfiscated. )
Again, I doubt China would accept this, but maybe a combination of fearing to lose Taiwan altogether, a desire to relieve the international stress, and perhaps a genuine desire to reunite would let this happen.
The door would still be open for a consolidation of power, but only at in accord with the will of the people of Taiwan. Maybe it would be enough.
)