Is there a '92 consensus?
We all know the answer is no, and the evidence is in the open every day.
When Ma talks about the importance of the '92 consensus and "One China, two interpretations" to cross-strait relations, China reports it positively, but without mentioning the "One China, two interpretations" part. And it's considered a "good first step" by the Ma administration to tell public officials to refer to China as "the mainland" or "the other side" of the strait.
When Ma talks about the importance of the '92 consensus and "One China, two interpretations" to cross-strait relations, China reports it positively, but without mentioning the "One China, two interpretations" part. And it's considered a "good first step" by the Ma administration to tell public officials to refer to China as "the mainland" or "the other side" of the strait.
1 comment:
The trick lies in the definition of "One China Principle." It's officially defined by China gov as having 3 parts:
1) There's only one China;
2) Taiwan is part of China;
3) PROC is the only legal gov of China
Ma Ying-jeou says "One China", China says "One China Principle," it's hard for general readers to distinguish the two.
Now they conspire to say the 1992 consensus exists, by dancing around the blurring meaning of both "One China" and "One China Principle", that in the long run would sneak in the whole thing of One China Principle and plant a seed of "Taiwan belongs to China" deep into people's mind.
For clarity, USA's position is "One China Policy."
Post a Comment