Government denies China will put hold on official visits
Here. Not sure about credibility.
Meanwhile, Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) makes further claim to the success of the "mutual non-denial" policy, this time saying China does not deny the reality of the R.O.C. being a sovereign, independent country. This, the government is claiming, is big progress from the previous "mutual non-recognition" stance (which, by the way, had been abandoned since Lee Teng-hui but was brought back from the grave by Ma Ying-jeou).
To recognize the pure absurdity of this position, which is apparently the new government refrain, please see Chinese rationale for the smackdown of Ma administration-led 2008 efforts to participate in UN special institutions; namely, that (and I quote), "the UN and its special institutions are international organizations made by sovereign countries. The world has only one China, and Taiwan is a part of China," and letting Taiwan in "is an attempt to create 'Two Chinas' or 'One China, One Taiwan,' infringes on Chinese territorial integrity and is roundly rejected by the Chinese government and people."
If that is not an official denial of R.O.C. sovereignty, I'm not sure what is.
Remember, the real Chinese position is simply "not denying mutual non-denial to your face." (不在你面前否認互不否認。) That is why no Chinese official has used the phrase yet, and all official media simply attribute it to Ma. "Dream on," seems to be the message from the Chinese side.
If it were really "mutual non-denial," that would be the same as "not denying 'One Side, One Country," so you can see why China won't do that. Even though "non-denial" is still a long way from recognition.
Progress, sweet progress...
4 comments:
.
.
.
A-gu,
Can you please tell me if you think this "Mutual Non-denial" thing is based on the 1992 so-called consensus? That is, one China -- two interpretations.
If you think it is, could you please tell me how you think that it would be beneficial for Taiwan to have this formula >> R.O.C. = China?
Thanks.
.
.
.
On your first point, I'm not sure you need to logically agree with the 1992 'consensus' to arrive at "mutual non-denial," but there's no question the policies have gone hand-in-hand, and without a doubt, China would not be willing to quietly ignore "mutual non-denial" unless there was an agreement to the 1992 'consensus.'
The policies are in fact very similar -- they are a consensus to pretend there's a consensus, which is itself a kind of consensus but is not the consensus defined by either side.
In terms of how it could be beneficial, all I can say is
(1) I'm strongly anti-"One China" in any form; and
(2) exactly what benefits it could bring depend entirely on what the CPP's true positions are (not publically stated positions) when it comes to how much space/freedom of decision it is willing to accept when it comes to Taiwan, as well as what the KMT's real bottom lines are. So far both are shrouded in the secrecy of the 國共平台
I think from the average KMT supporter's perspective, these are all purely rhetorical games that haven't affected anything real yet. I agree they've had minimal real impact so far but see the rhetorical change as being ominous and difficult to retreat from.
.
.
.
A-gu,
Thanks for your intelligent reply.
The question, more specifically for me, is WHAT to they "not deny". Is China possibly willing to "not deny" that the KMT (note: not the Taiwanese, but the KMT) believes that the R.O.C. = China. That is, the R.O.C. entails China. Put another way, if you are in "China", then you are in the R.O.C.
Think about that for a moment.
The crucial element of that belief is ultimately who controls the R.O.C. This is not addressed in the KMT vision of "one China", is it? It simply states the the R.O.C. IS China. I would like someone to ask President Ma who he thinks is ultimately in control of the R.O.C.
But going back to this "mutual non-denial" play on words, the specifics are also very vague. What are they not denying? That the KMT government believes in a fantasy? That is, that the KMT believe that they control China. If that is the case, then China clearly has the edge, internationally. Taiwan will be looked at as a joke.
Or maybe they are "not denying" that simply the R.O.C. = China. This, again, does not contradict the notion that the PRC "owns" Taiwan, because the element of "control" is missing from this equation.
Either way, China has the edge.
.
.
.
I think yes, China has the edge in either scenario you are describing. But the KMT's best case scenario, and presumably what they are hoping for, is to get great relations going with China, reduce any threat China makes to Taiwan, and get both sides to formally kick the can on future unification.
I think that to believe China will give any room without something they can read as a guarantee on future unification is naive.
Post a Comment