Most Popular
-
1
Actor Jung Woo-sung admits to being father of model Moon Ga-bi’s child
-
2
Wealthy parents ditch Korean passports to get kids into international school
-
3
Man convicted after binge eating to avoid military service
-
4
First snow to fall in Seoul on Wednesday
-
5
Final push to forge UN treaty on plastic pollution set to begin in Busan
-
6
Korea to hold own memorial for forced labor victims, boycotting Japan’s
-
7
Nvidia CEO signals Samsung’s imminent shipment of AI chips
-
8
Job creation lowest on record among under-30s
-
9
NK troops disguised as 'indigenous' people in Far East for combat against Ukraine: report
-
10
Opposition leader awaits perjury trial ruling
We all know what it means to break the law. It is perhaps the most fundamental fact governing our social behavior that we understand the constraints and the pressures to stay within the law and the consequences of not doing so.
Kuomintang Honorary Chairman Wu Po-hsiung’s shocking “one country, two areas” remark, believed to be President Ma’s message, is precisely laying the groundwork for cross-strait relations, eliminating surprises and stepping forward from the current “1992 Consensus” toward improving cross-strait ties.
What is unclear is the focus of the proposal and whether mainland Chinese officials would accept the premise that the “two areas” are equal counterparts as opposed to a federal authority and a provincial government. The fact that Wu made the statement in Beijing is already an indication of China’s tacit knowledge.
Presuming that the presidential spokesman’s “one China” is the Republic of China, then the “one country, two areas” framework would be a huge breakthrough in cross-strait relations that heavily favors Taiwan.
According to international relations scholar G. John Ikenberry, stability is the constant propelling factor for peace and prosperity, and is the fruit of great diplomatic travails that require cooperation and understanding.
Take any human relationship for an analogy: It can only last if the parties involved understand fully the expectation of the other and deliberately work toward improving the relationship through making compromises and avoiding pressing the hot buttons.
Ma’s “one country, two areas” framework is obviously not the most acceptable interpretation of cross-strait relation ― given growing public support in Taiwan for the country’s independence ― but it is a viable solution that scores points for further discussions that would benefit Taiwan in the face of mainland China’s ambitions to take “back” the island.
In other words, Ma’s proposal opens a new gateway to cross-strait relations that may be acceptable to mainland China while, yes, paradoxically, preserves, defends and protects Taiwan’s de facto independence.
When it comes to the sovereignty of a nation, the de jure authority is defined by the constitution of that nation ― the black ink written on paper. In some cases, as in the example of the constitution of the Republic of China, the sovereignty defined by the constitution, which includes mainland China, is nothing more than words on paper.
On the other hand, the de facto sovereignty is over the territory a state actually governs; in this case, Taiwan and the Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu islands.
Taiwanese politicians like to play the trick of confusing goose for gander. They often talk about Taiwan’s de facto independence in de jure rhetoric. The common mudslinging from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party is that President Ma forfeited Taiwan’s sovereignty and decided to stand under his “one China” umbrella. Mind you that Taiwan, as a country, does not exist. Taiwan is where the exiled ROC government currently resides.
By acceding that Taiwan is just a part, not the entirety, of the ROC is enlarging not belittling the nation’s sovereignty. It does sound like grandiose rhetoric, but such is the complex nature of cross-strait relations.
Unfortunately, the DPP has taken the fizz out of the pro-independence movement that promised a new national identity and constitution.
Given that mainland China is rising to become a global superpower, Taiwan does not have the stomach for confrontation, but must chug along from the same page.
The “one country, two areas” principle could be the high road that leads Taiwan to Beijing’s head-turning recognition of the ROC’s legitimate government, and most importantly, a government that is respected as equal.
Taiwan’s future still remains in the hands of its people. Tamping up the faux “one country, two areas” framework does not hurt the nation’s sovereignty in any way. All it does is lay the groundwork for cross-strait peace and prosperity.
President Ma’s new proposal can lift Taiwan off the ground to stride on a new road of protection from mainland China’s influence. At the same time, before the island rolls out the final mile to ultimate unification, it could strengthen its power to stand on its own feet. We have all heard the sayings that urge us to keep your enemy close and than the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If those maxims remain true, Taiwan should conduct frequent and official exchanges to break the cross-strait ice while strengthening U.S.-Taiwan cooperation.
(The China Post (Taiwan))
(Asia News Network)
Kuomintang Honorary Chairman Wu Po-hsiung’s shocking “one country, two areas” remark, believed to be President Ma’s message, is precisely laying the groundwork for cross-strait relations, eliminating surprises and stepping forward from the current “1992 Consensus” toward improving cross-strait ties.
What is unclear is the focus of the proposal and whether mainland Chinese officials would accept the premise that the “two areas” are equal counterparts as opposed to a federal authority and a provincial government. The fact that Wu made the statement in Beijing is already an indication of China’s tacit knowledge.
Presuming that the presidential spokesman’s “one China” is the Republic of China, then the “one country, two areas” framework would be a huge breakthrough in cross-strait relations that heavily favors Taiwan.
According to international relations scholar G. John Ikenberry, stability is the constant propelling factor for peace and prosperity, and is the fruit of great diplomatic travails that require cooperation and understanding.
Take any human relationship for an analogy: It can only last if the parties involved understand fully the expectation of the other and deliberately work toward improving the relationship through making compromises and avoiding pressing the hot buttons.
Ma’s “one country, two areas” framework is obviously not the most acceptable interpretation of cross-strait relation ― given growing public support in Taiwan for the country’s independence ― but it is a viable solution that scores points for further discussions that would benefit Taiwan in the face of mainland China’s ambitions to take “back” the island.
In other words, Ma’s proposal opens a new gateway to cross-strait relations that may be acceptable to mainland China while, yes, paradoxically, preserves, defends and protects Taiwan’s de facto independence.
When it comes to the sovereignty of a nation, the de jure authority is defined by the constitution of that nation ― the black ink written on paper. In some cases, as in the example of the constitution of the Republic of China, the sovereignty defined by the constitution, which includes mainland China, is nothing more than words on paper.
On the other hand, the de facto sovereignty is over the territory a state actually governs; in this case, Taiwan and the Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu islands.
Taiwanese politicians like to play the trick of confusing goose for gander. They often talk about Taiwan’s de facto independence in de jure rhetoric. The common mudslinging from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party is that President Ma forfeited Taiwan’s sovereignty and decided to stand under his “one China” umbrella. Mind you that Taiwan, as a country, does not exist. Taiwan is where the exiled ROC government currently resides.
By acceding that Taiwan is just a part, not the entirety, of the ROC is enlarging not belittling the nation’s sovereignty. It does sound like grandiose rhetoric, but such is the complex nature of cross-strait relations.
Unfortunately, the DPP has taken the fizz out of the pro-independence movement that promised a new national identity and constitution.
Given that mainland China is rising to become a global superpower, Taiwan does not have the stomach for confrontation, but must chug along from the same page.
The “one country, two areas” principle could be the high road that leads Taiwan to Beijing’s head-turning recognition of the ROC’s legitimate government, and most importantly, a government that is respected as equal.
Taiwan’s future still remains in the hands of its people. Tamping up the faux “one country, two areas” framework does not hurt the nation’s sovereignty in any way. All it does is lay the groundwork for cross-strait peace and prosperity.
President Ma’s new proposal can lift Taiwan off the ground to stride on a new road of protection from mainland China’s influence. At the same time, before the island rolls out the final mile to ultimate unification, it could strengthen its power to stand on its own feet. We have all heard the sayings that urge us to keep your enemy close and than the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If those maxims remain true, Taiwan should conduct frequent and official exchanges to break the cross-strait ice while strengthening U.S.-Taiwan cooperation.
(The China Post (Taiwan))
(Asia News Network)
