Share this

Jan 6, 2009

Hu's speech (again)

More on Hu's speech to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the mainland's open appeal for unification to the Taiwanese people. This is a very interesting passage that bears consideration.

胡锦涛说,维护国家主权和领土完整是国家核心利益。世界上只有一个中国,中国主权和领土 完整不容分割。1949年以来,大陆和台湾尽管尚未统一,但不是中国领土和主权的分裂,而是上世纪40年代中后期中国内战遗留并延续的政治对立,这没有改 变大陆和台湾同属一个中国的事实。两岸复归统一,不是主权和领土再造,而是结束政治对立。

Hu Jintao said that protecting the nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity is in the country's fundamental interests. The world only has one China, and the sovereignty and territory of China cannot be compromised. Since 1949, although the mainland and Taiwan have not yet been unified, China's territory and sovereignty have not been split; rather, the non-unification is remnant of the Chinese civil war in the 1940s, a political confrontation, and it does not change the fact that Taiwan and China are both part of one China. The unification of China does not mean that sovereignty or territory will be altered, but rather that the political confrontation comes to an end.
So... what's it mean? Is this supposed to be a hint that China can accept something less than full political integration, less than "one country, two systems," and would be willing to label it unification? Is it merely a reaffirmation of the One China principal with no further implications? Is it meant to further the official Chinese position that there is no ROC?

Interesting questions if you ask me.

Remember, the peace accord is not far off.

9 comments:

D. Corey said...

"does not mean that sovereignty or territory will be altered"

Isn't that supposed to be how Hong Kong was governed? Well, look at the direction HK is headed in, or how it is now...their autonomy is constantly in flux, and I'm quite certain there would be little to no exception in Taiwan's case.

Hey! How come Mongolia never does any background yelling? They do know they are next if Taiwan was every annexed to China...right?

D. Corey said...

Also, that isn't to say that would do much good...Mongolia...I'm just sayin'...

STOP Ma said...

.
.
.
A-gu,

This line clearly explains what Hu meant (above the one you bolded):

Since 1949, although the mainland and Taiwan have not yet been unified, China's territory and sovereignty have not been split;

Hu is saying that because Taiwan is not a sovereign country (because Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the PRC in his opinion), Taiwan's status will not change when annexation (read, "reunification") occurs.

I'm afraid he is still uttering the same bullshit.
.
.
.

STOP Ma said...

.
.
.
Now, if I were a reporter, the first question I would ask PandaMa would be,

"Hu Jin-tao has stated recently that Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the People's Republic of China. How does this square with your promise to uphold Taiwan's sovereignty when you are negotiating with a leader who has rejected your idea of "mutual non-denial" and, with the above words, has rejected the so-called "1992 Consensus"? In other words, how do you justify negotiating with someone who has completely rejected your core foundation for negotiating a peace treaty?
.
.
.

Raj said...

D. Corey

Well, look at the direction HK is headed in, or how it is now...their autonomy is constantly in flux, and I'm quite certain there would be little to no exception in Taiwan's case.

To be fair, HK was not independent before 1997. It had an inappropriate democratic system that was fine for the colonial era but wasn't suitable afterwards - but it was not changed prior to the handover. Political change was dependant on approval from China.

Clearly that could not work with Taiwan because it already runs itself. So in some respects the fear over HK is misplaced. The only problem would be if China insisted it could gain control over certain aspects of Taiwan's political/legal affairs.

Sean Su said...

Hu Jin-tao has stated recently that Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the People's Republic of China. How does this square with your promise to uphold Taiwan's sovereignty when you are negotiating with a leader who has rejected your idea of "mutual non-denial" and, with the above words, has rejected the so-called "1992 Consensus"? In other words, how do you justify negotiating with someone who has completely rejected your core foundation for negotiating a peace treaty?

I dunno, its obvious to everyone else.
Self-Denial?

D. Corey said...

Raj,

I was referring not to the democracy itself, but to the promise of not compromising "autonomy"...which has been done in the case of Hong Kong.

Thomas said...

A Gu, I would say that I see little different in this passage from the standard lines the Chinese government usually feeds out. Hu is just repeating the same old crap, only he has the subservience of Ma to thank for making his line seem all the more believable to the Chinese masses.

The only real significance for Taiwan is, as Stop Ma says, in the fact that Hu's line has not changed, but Ma and the KMT are bending over backwards to insist that it has.

Raj said...

I was referring not to the democracy itself, but to the promise of not compromising "autonomy"...which has been done in the case of Hong Kong.

The only reason HK autonomy has been "compromised" is because its political system was not fully reformed and Beijing had authority in that and other areas.

Taiwan's political system has been finalised and assuming there was some form of "unification" it would be highly unlikely that China's approval would be required for changes that affected Taiwan other than issues concerning Taiwan's relationship with China (as that would have been concluded prior to unification).

That there is autonomy does not mean the "parent state" automatically has the ability to interfere.