Legislative claims of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China

People's Republic of China(PRC)

• Preamble of the :"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."
• Anti-Secession Law: » 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. » :Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means."
  
  
     Article 5: Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country. » :To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.
  
  
     :After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
• (This section an unofficial translation, it may be have ambiguity or wrong translation with origin file):
  
  • For the administrative and administrator below city-level of Republic of China, can be called directly, for example Mayor of Taipei, Ma_Ying-jeou
  • For the administrative and administrator above city-level of Republic of China, must called by quotation(quotation meaning so-called in Chinese), for nation-level organization, must use another way, for example "Governor of Fujian Province",Chen Chin-jun; the leader of Taiwan Area, Chen Shui-bian,The administrative organization of Taiwan Area.
  • For the parties in Taiwan Area, can be called directly, for example Chairman of DPP, Frank Hsieh
  • For the official-backgrounded non-official organizations, must called by quotation, for example "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States","Chung Hwa Travel Service"
  • Avoid using the organizations in Taiwan Area named with "Republic of China" or "National", for those using "China" or "Chung Huwa", the quotation mark can be used or not.
  • The law in Taiwan called as "Rule", passport called "Travel Certificate" and so on.

Republic of China (ROC)

(Traditional Chinese)

• For all the administrative organisations and military and their personnel in Mainland Area, call it by adding a prefix 'Chinese Communist' and quotation marks to the organisation name, eg Chinese Communist "Ministry of Finance";
• For party and private organisation names in Mainland Area, call it by adding a prefix 'Chinese Communist' or 'Mainland' but no quotation marks, eg General Secretary Hu Jintao of the CCP Central Committee or Mainland Kai Li Enterprise;
• For state-owned company and academy, call it by adding a prefix 'Chinese communist' or 'Mainland' and quotation marks, eg Chinese Communist (or Mainland) "Chinese Academy of Social Sciences";
• For Beijing, call it as "Peiping," or "Peiping (Beijing)." When Beijing is described as capital, it should be called as Chinese Communist "capital" Peiping (Beijing); and
• For the national symbols used by the mainland area, such as national anthem, national flag, national day, national symbol, call it by adding a prefix 'Chinese Communist' and quotation marks, Chinese Communist "national flag", "national anthem", "national day", "national symbol".
• When calling the names in English, no quotation marks will apply (but the prefix of 'Chinese Communist' or 'Mainland' will still apply). The romansation standard used for English translations should be the system used by the ROC, but for the sake of easy understanding, this may be modified subject to current common use.

Interpretations of the One-China policy

One interpretation, which was adopted during the Cold War, is that either the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China is the sole rightful government of all China and that the other government is illegitimate. While much of the western bloc maintained relations with the ROC until the 1970s under this policy, much of the eastern bloc maintained relations with the PRC. While the government of the ROC considered itself the remaining holdout of the legitimate government of a country overrun by what it thought of as Communist rebels, the PRC claimed to have succeeded the ROC in the Chinese Civil War. Though the ROC no longer portrays itself as the sole legitimate government of China, the position of the PRC remained unchanged until the early 2000s, when the PRC began to soften its position on this issue to promote Chinese reunification.
   The revised position of the PRC was made clear in the Anti-Secession Law of 2005, which although stating that there's one China whose sovereignty is indivisible, doesn't explicitly identify this China with the PRC. Beijing has made no major statements after 2004 which identify one China with the PRC and has shifted its definition of one China slightly to encompass a concept called the consensus of 1992 which is that there's one China which includes both the Mainland and Taiwan but that different people have different interpretations of what that One China is.
   One interpretation of one China is that there exists only three geographical regions of China, which was split into two Chinese governments by the Chinese Civil War. This is largely the position of current supporters of Chinese reunification in Mainland China who believe that this "one China" should eventually reunite under a single government. Starting in 2005, this position has become close enough to the positions of the PRC to allow for high-level dialogue between the Communist Party of China and the Pan-Blue Coalition of Taiwan.

One-China policy of the Republic of China

In the Republic of China, all major parties reject the interpretation that the People's Republic of China is the One China that includes Taiwan; however, they differ on the interpretation of the One China principle. The Pan-Blue Coalition parties, consisting of the Kuomintang, the People's First Party, and the New Party, accept the One-China policy, but they don't equate China with the PRC; rather, they accept that the ROC and PRC will each equate itself with "One China" while agreeing that there's only "One China". In particular, former Kuomintang chairman Ma Ying-Jeou stated in 2006 that "One China is the Republic of China". Before democratization in the 1980s and 1990s, the authoritarian Kuomintang government actively claimed that the ROC is the only legitimate "One China" while the PRC is illegitimate; these claims are no longer actively pursued.
   The Pan-Green Coalition parties, consisting of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union, are more hostile to the policy, as they view Taiwan as a country separate from China. The former President of the Republic of China, Chen Shui-bian of the DPP, regards acceptance of the "One China" principle as capitulation to the PRC, and prefers to view it as nothing more than a topic for discussion, in opposition to the PRC's insistence that the "One China" policy is a prerequisite for any negotiation.
   Legally speaking, the Republic of China continues to maintain its version of the "One China" principle by officially (but no longer actively) claiming sovereignty over all of its territory before 1949, including Mongolia. All countries maintaining official ties with Taipei recognize the ROC as the sole and legitimate government of all of China. There are several recent examples of this policy. For example, when the Vatican held a state funeral for Pope John Paul II, the President of the Republic of China, Chen Shui-bian, attended the funeral as simply, the President of China. The Vatican doesn't recognize Communist China (PRC). Also, when President Chen visited Panama on a state visit, he was also welcomed and named as the President of China.

One-China policy and diplomatic relations

The One-China Principle is also a requirement for any political entity to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. The PRC has traditionally attempted to get nations to recognize that "the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of all of China...and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China." However, many nations are unwilling to make this particular statement and there was often a protracted effort to find language regarding one China that's acceptable to both sides. Some countries use terms like "acknowledge", "understand", "take note of", while others explicitly use the term "support" or "recognize" for Beijing's position on the status of Taiwan.
   The name "Chinese Taipei" is the only acceptable name in most international arenas since "Taiwan" suggests that Taiwan is a separate country and "Republic of China" suggests that there are two Chinas, and thus both violate the One-China Principle. Most countries that recognize Beijing circumvent the diplomatic language by establishing "Trade Offices" that represents their interests on Taiwanese soil, while the ROC government represents its interests abroad with TECRO, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. The United States (and any other nation having diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China) doesn't have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Instead, external relations are handled via nominally private organizations such as the American Institute in Taiwan or the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei.
   In the case of the United States, the One-China policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there's but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States doesn't challenge that position." Thus, the United States's One-China Policy is subtly different from the One China Principle that China imposes on the rest of the world in that Washington hasn't expressed an explicitly immutable statement regarding whether it believes Taiwan is independent or not. Instead, Washington simply states that they understand China's claims that the country claims Taiwan as its own. In fact, many scholars agree that US One-China Policy wasn't intended to please the Chinese government, but as a way for Washington to conduct international relations in the region, which Beijing fails to state.
   When President Jimmy Carter in 1979 broke off relations with Taiwan in order to establish relations with the PRC, Congress responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act, which while maintaining relations, stopped short of full recognition of the ROC. In 1982 President Ronald Reagan also saw that the Six Assurances were adopted, the sixth being that the United States wouldn't formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Still, United States policy has remained ambiguous. During the House International Relations Committee on April 21 of 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James A. Kelly, was asked by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) whether America’s commitment to Taiwan’s democracy conflicted with the so-called One-China Policy. He admitted the difficulty on defining the U.S.'s position: "I didn’t really define it, and I’m not sure I very easily could define it." He added, "I can tell you what it's not. It isn't the One-China principle that Beijing suggests." (External Link) For any country who wants to establish diplomatic relationship with mainland China, it must first discontinue any formal relationship with Taiwan by the request of the Chinese mainland government. In order to compete for other countries' recognition, each other gives money to those remaining few small countries. The Chinese government has accused the ROC government of monetary diplomacy. Several small African and Caribbean countries have established and discontinued diplomatic relationship with both sides several times in exchange for huge financial support from each side.
   Of the 192 members of the United Nations, only Bhutan has chosen to recognize neither the People's Republic of China nor the Republic of China. All remaining governments have recognized one or the other, recognizing that government as the sole legitimate government of all China.

One-China policy and cross-strait relations

The acknowledgement of the One China Principle is also a prerequisite by the People's Republic of China government for any cross-strait dialogue be held with groups from Taiwan. The PRC's One-China policy rejects formulas which call for "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" and has stated that efforts to divide the sovereignty of China could be met with military force.
   The PRC has explicitly stated that it's flexible about the meaning "one China," and that "one China" may not necessarily be synonymous with the PRC, and has offered to talk with parties on Taiwan and the government on Taiwan on the basis of the Consensus of 1992 which states that there's one China, but that there are different interpretations of that one China. For example, in Premier Zhu Rongji's statements prior to the 2000 Presidential Election in Taiwan, he stated that as long as any ruling power in Taiwan accepts the One China Principle, they can negotiate and discuss anything freely. However, the One-China Principle would apparently require that Taiwan formally give up any possibility of Taiwan independence, and would preclude any "one nation, two states" formula similar to ones used in German Ostpolitik or in Korean reunification. The current Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian has repeatedly rejected the demands to accept the One China Principle and instead called for talks to discuss One China itself.
   One China was the formulation held by the ROC government before the 1990s, but it was asserted that the one China was the Republic of China rather than PRC. However, in 1991, President Lee Teng-hui indicated that he wouldn't challenge the right of the Communist authorities to rule the mainland. This is a significant point in the history of Cross Straits relations in that the ROC no longer claims administrative authority over mainland China. Henceforth, the issue is no longer who rules all of China, but who claims legitimacy over Taiwan and the surrounding islands. Over the course of the 1990s, President Lee appeared to drift away from the One-China formulation, leading many to believe that he was actually sympathetic to Taiwan independence. In 1999, Lee proposed a Special state-to-state relations for mainland China-Taiwan relations which was received angrily by Beijing, which ended semi-official dialogue.
   After the election of Chen Shui-bian in 2000, the policy of the ROC government was to propose negotiations without preconditions. While Chen didn't explicitly reject Lee's two states theory, he didn't explicitly endorse it either. Throughout 2001, there were unsuccessful attempts to find an acceptable formula for both sides, such as agreeing to "abide by the 1992 consensus." President Chen, after assuming the Democratic Progressive Party chairmanship in July 2002, moved to a somewhat less ambiguous policy, and stated in early August 2002 that "it is clear that both sides of the straits are separate countries." This statement was strongly criticized by opposition pan-blue coalition parties on Taiwan, which support a One-China Principle, but oppose defining this "One China" as the PRC.
   The One China policy became an issue during the 2004 ROC Presidential election. Chen Shui-bian abandoned his earlier ambiguity and publicly rejected the One-China Principle claiming it would imply that Taiwan is part of the PRC. His opponent Lien Chan publicly supported a policy of "one China, different interpretations," as done in 1992. At the end of the 2004 election, Lien Chan and his running mate, James Soong, later announced that they wouldn't put ultimate unification as the goal for their cross-strait policy and wouldn't exclude the possibility of an independent Taiwan in the future. President Chen admits that he leans towards independence, but his main position is opposition to adopting the One China policy since it prevents Taiwanese people from being able to decide upon their own future. This point is reinforced by the most recent interview with Washington Post in which Chen states, "We shouldn't exclude independence as one of the options nor should we exclude unification as a possible choice. Similarly, we shouldn't make Taiwan independence the only choice, nor should we make unification the only choice."
   In an interview with Time Asia bureau prior to the 2004 presidential elections, Chen used the model of German and European Union as examples of how countries may come together while in the Soviet Union, a country may fragment. He added that as long as the Taiwanese people have the right to vote for unification or independence in a referendum without any external threats, he accepts the results. However, he noted that the current condition (on March 2004) was that Taiwan is a distinctly separate entity from China.
   In March 2005, the PRC passed an Anti-Secession Law which authorized the use of force to prevent a "serious incident" that breaks the One China policy, but which at the same time didn't identify one China with the People's Republic and offered to pursue political solutions. At the same session of the PRC Congress, a large increase in military spending was also passed, leading blue team members to interpret those measures as forcing the ROC to adhere to the One China Policy or else the PRC would attack.
   In April and May 2005, Lien Chan and James Soong made separate trips to Mainland China, during which both explicitly supported the Consensus of 1992 and the concept of one China and in which both explicitly stated their parties' opposition to Taiwan independence. Although President Chen at one point supported the trips of Lien and Soong for diffusing cross-strait tensions, he also attacked them for working with the "enemy" PRC.

Further Information

Get more info on 'One-china Policy'.

External Link Exchanges Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page: <a href="http://one-china_policy.totallyexplained.com">One-China policy Totally Explained</a> Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.    As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.