Back سياسة الصين الواحدة Arabic Палітыка аднаго Кітая Byelorussian Политика на единен Китай Bulgarian Politika jedne Kine BS Spor o Čínu Czech Et-Kina-politik Danish Ein-China-Politik German Una sola China Spanish Txina Bakarra Basque چین واحد Persian
| One China | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese | 一個中國 | ||||||||||
| Simplified Chinese | 一个中国 | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| One China principle | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese | 一個中國原則 | ||||||||||
| Simplified Chinese | 一个中国原则 | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| One China with respective interpretations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese | 一個中國各自表述 | ||||||
| Simplified Chinese | 一个中国各自表述 | ||||||
| |||||||
| One China policy | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese | 一個中國政策 | ||||||||||
| Simplified Chinese | 一个中国政策 | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg) |
|---|
State representative
Executive organ Military organ
Supervisory organ |
 China portal |
_cap_insignia.svg){kind=small}
 |
|---|
 Taiwan portal |
The term One China may refer, in alphabetical order, to one of the following:
- The One China policy refers to a United States policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan.[1] In a 1972 joint communiqué with the PRC, the United States "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position."[2] It reaffirms the U.S. interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question.[3] The United States has formal relations with the PRC, recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China, and simultaneously maintains its unofficial relations with Taiwan while taking no official position on Taiwanese sovereignty.[4][5][6] The US “acknowledges” but does not “endorse” PRC's position over Taiwan,[7][8] and has considered Taiwan's political status as “undetermined”.[9]
- Internationally, it may also refer to the stance of numerous other countries. For instance, Australia's 1972 Joint Communiqué with the PRC recognised the Government of the PRC as China's sole legal government, and acknowledged the position of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC",[10] but "neither supports nor opposes the PRC position" on the matter.[11] While some countries, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan like the U.S. acknowledge but do not recognise the PRC's claim, the communiqués of some others, including Israel, Panama, and the Gambia, concurs with the PRC's interpretation.[12]
- The One China principle is the position held by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that there is only one sovereign state under the name China, with the PRC serving as the sole legitimate government of that China, and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.[13][14] It is opposed to the idea that there are two states holding the name "China", the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC); as well as the idea that China and Taiwan form two separate countries.[15]
- One China with respective interpretations refers to the interpretation of the 1992 Consensus asserted by the ROC's then-governing political party Kuomintang (KMT) that both the PRC and ROC had agreed that there is one "China", but disagreed on whether "China" is represented by the PRC or ROC.[16][17] This interpretation of the 1992 Consensus has not been accepted by the PRC.[18][19] The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the other major party of the ROC politics, has never acknowledged the existence of the so-called "1992 consensus" and also rejected any claim that both sides of the Taiwan Strait as "one China".[20] Lee Teng-hui, the President of the ROC from the KMT at the time, said no consensus had been reached in 1992 and claims to the contrary were "nonsense", and that the term was "something that former Mainland Affairs Council minister Su Chi (蘇起) fabricated to placate the KMT in 2000s", which Su conceded in 2006.[21]
- Prior to the 1991 constitutional amendments and democratization of Taiwan, the KMT-dominated Republic of China (ROC) government considered the ROC itself as the sole legitimate government of "China", which contested sovereignty over its constitutionally-defined territories, including the former late Qing dynasty borders of Mainland China, Tibet, Outer Mongolia, Tannu Uriankhai, and Badakhshan etc.,[22][23] and also legally designated the Chinese Communist Party as a "rebellious group".[24]
After the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) defeated the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War and the subsequent retreat of the ROC to Taiwan, the CCP established the PRC in mainland China while the ROC ruled over Taiwan and several outlying islands. During this time, both governments continued to claim legitimacy as the government of all of China. Initially, international recognition of the two was split, but most countries began to recognize the PRC over the ROC in the 70s, including the United States in 1979. The language in the United States' One China policy first arose in its joint 1972 Communiqué with the PRC.
Under ROC President Lee Teng-hui in the 1990s, the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China were passed which effectively transformed Taiwan from a one-party state into a democracy, and limited civil and political rights to citizens in the "free area" (the area under its actual control, consisting mostly of Taiwan), but did not alter language regarding territorial claims or national territory.[25] Subsequently, views on the One China principle in the ROC have been largely split along party lines: Pan-Blue coalition parties (including the KMT), which favor One China with respective interpretations, while Pan-Green coalition parties (including the Democratic Progressive Party) reject it. Meanwhile, the PRC has maintained its One China principle.[26]
- ^ "What is America's policy of "strategic ambiguity" over Taiwan?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 12 March 2023. Retrieved 23 July 2022.
- ^ "Wilson Center Digital Archive". 22 July 2022. Archived from the original on 22 July 2022. Retrieved 23 July 2022.
- ^ "Wilson Center Digital Archive". 22 July 2022. Archived from the original on 22 July 2022. Retrieved 22 July 2022.
- ^ Steve Chabot (17 May 2016). "Text - H.Con.Res.88 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Reaffirming the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances as cornerstones of United States-Taiwan relations". United States Congress. Archived from the original on 17 December 2020. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
Whereas the Six Assurances are guidelines to conduct relations between the United States and Taiwan and stipulate that the United States would not—......(6) formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.
- ^ Michael J. Green (13 January 2017). "What Is the U.S. "One China" Policy, and Why Does it Matter?". CSIS. Archived from the original on 23 April 2022. Retrieved 29 April 2022.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ "What is the 'One China' policy?". BBC News. 10 February 2017. Archived from the original on 9 January 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
- ^ "US Does Not Take a Position on Taiwan's Sovereignty, State Department Says". VOA. 26 September 2022. Retrieved 17 August 2023.
- ^ "China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 10 October 2014. p. 39. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 April 2017. Retrieved 7 March 2017.
In the Chinese text, the word for "acknowledge" is "cheng ren" (recognize), a change from "ren shi" (acknowledge),used in the 1972 Shanghai Communique. During debate on the TRA in February 1979, Senator Jacob Javits noted the difference and said that "it is very important that we not subscribe to the Chinese position on One China either way." Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher responded that "we regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word 'acknowledge' as being the word that is determinative for the U.S." (Wolff and Simon, pp. 310-311).
- ^ Shirley A. Kan; Wayne M. Morrison (4 January 2013). "U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 December 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2017.
The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points:
1. The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982.
2. The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
3. U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;
4. U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and
5. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.
These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service. - ^ https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/taiwan/australia-taiwan-relationship Archived 8 September 2021 at the Wayback Machine [bare URL]
- ^ https://chinamatters.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Interpretations-of-one-China.pdf Archived 3 March 2023 at the Wayback Machine [bare URL PDF]
- ^ "One China, Multiple Interpretations". 28 December 2017. Archived from the original on 9 March 2020. Retrieved 13 April 2023.
- ^ "The United States "One China Policy" is NOT the same as the PRC "One China Principle"". US-Taiwan Business Council. 1 January 2022. Archived from the original on 12 April 2022. Retrieved 29 April 2022.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Jessica Drun (28 December 2017). "One China, Multiple Interpretations". Center for Advanced China Research. Archived from the original on 9 March 2020. Retrieved 29 April 2022.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ "The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue". www.china.org.cn. Archived from the original on 27 February 2019. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
- ^ Jessica Drun (11 March 2020). "Taiwan's Opposition Struggles to Shake Pro-China Image". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 1 May 2022. Retrieved 2 May 2022.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Cheng-feng Shih, Mumin Chen (2010). "Taiwanese Identity and the Memories of 2.28: A Case for Political Reconciliation" (PDF). 34. National Dong Hwa University: 102. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 August 2021. Retrieved 2 May 2022.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Chen, Dean (11 March 2014). "Constructing Peaceful Development: The Changing Interpretations of "One China" and Beijing's Taiwan Strait Policy". Asian Security. 10: 22–46. doi:10.1080/14799855.2013.874337. S2CID 153446645. Archived from the original on 20 April 2022. Retrieved 20 April 2022.
- ^ 蔡, 儀潔 (27 July 2022). "陸委會指沒有九二共識 陸學者：民進黨將對抗責任「甩鍋大陸」". ETtoday (in Chinese (Taiwan)). Archived from the original on 27 July 2022. Retrieved 27 July 2022.
唐永紅(廈門大學台研院副主任)進一步闡述道，在「九二共識」指的是雙方同意「兩岸同屬一個中國、共同努力謀求國家統一」，並非所謂的「一中各表」，「各表」實乃兩岸之分歧而非共識，而當年國民黨及其當局故意在台灣把「九二共識」說成「一中各表」，意圖將「各表」也當成兩岸「共識」，大陸從未認可；事實上，依據兩岸各自有關法規，兩岸不能相互承認，也就是不能把「各表」作為兩岸共識 。
- ^ "The DPP Administration's Logic and Policy on China". Mainland Affairs Council. Archived from the original on 10 December 2022. Retrieved 10 December 2022.
- ^ "No such thing as the '1992 consensus': Lee Teng-hui - Taipei Times". 3 May 2015. Archived from the original on 9 August 2022. Retrieved 13 April 2023.
- ^ Bi-Yu Chang (2015), "Place, Identity and National Imagination in Postwar Taiwan" (PDF), Building castles in the sand, Routledge, archived (PDF) from the original on 2 July 2022, retrieved 2 July 2022
- ^ Frank Jacobs (23 July 2010). "A Map of Greater China, Made in Taiwan". Big Think. Archived from the original on 21 May 2022. Retrieved 2 July 2022.
- ^ Han Cheung (25 April 2021). "Taiwan in Time: The 'communist rebellion' finally ends". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 22 October 2021. Retrieved 2 July 2022.
- ^ Lee Teng-hui 1999 interview with Deutsche Welle: https://fas.org/news/taiwan/1999/0709.htm Archived 9 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Xi Urges Vigilance Against Taiwan Independence". Archived from the original on 30 January 2023. Retrieved 13 April 2023.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search