
{"id":525,"date":"2005-05-11T20:19:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-11T12:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jameslick.com\/blog\/?p=525"},"modified":"2005-05-11T20:19:00","modified_gmt":"2005-05-11T12:19:00","slug":"china-post-editorial-on-one-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/?p=525","title":{"rendered":"China Post editorial on &#8216;One China&#8217;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/www.chinapost.com.tw\/\">China Post<\/a> had a great editorial by Dr. William Fang entitled &#8220;&#8216;One China with different interpretations&#8217; is only option&#8221;.  Unfortunately the China Post doesn&#8217;t include its editorials on their web site for some bizarre reason.  But that editorial is pretty close to my current opinions.<\/p>\n<p>The quoted part in the article title refers to what is called the &#8216;1992 consensus&#8217; which is based on the ground rules for an ROC-PRC meeting in Singapore.  While this &#8216;consensus&#8217; itself has been argued to mean different thing by different people, the most common interpretation of it is that both parties believe there is one China, but each side has a different idea of what that means.  Unfortunately this is still a bit vague.  Here are some excerpts from Dr. Fang&#8217;s editorial:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;[PFP Chairman] James Soong said that &#8216;one China with different interpretations&#8217; means the recognition of the current and historical status of the Republic of China.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Therefore it is suggested that the notion of &#8216;one China with different interpretations&#8217; should, from now on, replace the vague and controversial &#8216;1992 consensus&#8217; in talking about &#8216;one China.'&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is strongly suggested that the idea of &#8216;one China with different interpretations&#8217; be included in the official joint statement signed by Soong and his Communist counterpart.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;If the Communists really mean what the say in &#8216;adhering to the 1992 consensus,&#8217; they should have no difficulty agreeing to do so in order to demonstrate their sincerity in respecting the sovereignty of the ROC.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Under this formula, both Taipei and Beijing can each claim itself to be the &#8216;sole, legitimate government of China.'&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This is a mutually exclusive arrangement, but under it both are treated with parity, being equal political entities.  This gives both sides what the want: one China for Beijing, and equality for Taipei.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>This may be hard for Beijing to accept, as they have spent over 30 years trying to convince the world that the ROC government is illegitimate, doesn&#8217;t exist, or is otherwise subordinate to the PRC government.  If they are willing to accept that the ROC government is legitimate, then a great deal of progress can be made at resolving cross-strait issues.  Thank you, Dr. Fang for a very clearly worded expression of this.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday&#8217;s China Post had a great editorial by Dr. William Fang entitled &#8220;&#8216;One China with different interpretations&#8217; is only option&#8221;. Unfortunately the China Post doesn&#8217;t include its editorials on their web site for some bizarre reason. But that editorial is pretty close to my current opinions. The quoted part in the article title refers to &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/?p=525\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;China Post editorial on &#8216;One China&#8217;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=525"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/525\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.jameslick.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}