Heads of Taipei and Beijing regimes meet for the first time since 1945

[jaichind]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/asia/taiwan-china/index.html

ROC head Ma and PRC head Xi to meet in Singapore

Last time the head of the ROC meet with the head of the CCP based regime was in 1945 between Chiang and Mao.

[jaichind]

Ma and Xi will meet as "Leader of Taiwan region" and "Leader of Mainland region" respectively.  Both will refer to each other as "Mister."  This meets with my approval.  Neither can be referred  to as "President" as there is only One China and there can only be one President.  If we cannot agree which one that is they let there be none in the meantime.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ma and Xi will meet as "Leader of Taiwan region" and "Leader of Mainland region" respectively.  Both will refer to each other as "Mister."  This meets with my approval.  Neither can be referred  to as "President" as there is only One China and there can only be one President.  If we cannot agree which one that is they let there be none in the meantime.

Why can there only be one president?  This isn't Highlander.  Germany and Korea have been able to recognize that there are two governments.  Whenever the leader of North Korea can seem more reasonable than someone else, that should indicate that someone has a serious problem. That there are two Chinas now does not preclude reunification into one China later.  Frankly, the biggest blunder we made with out China policy in the 70's was not requiring that the PRC recognize that the ROC existed as a separate government, entitled to full diplomatic relations and full membership in international bodies in exchange for turning over the Chinese veto power in the UN to the PRC.

[jaichind]

Ma and Xi will meet as "Leader of Taiwan region" and "Leader of Mainland region" respectively.  Both will refer to each other as "Mister."  This meets with my approval.  Neither can be referred  to as "President" as there is only One China and there can only be one President.  If we cannot agree which one that is they let there be none in the meantime.

Why can there only be one president?  This isn't Highlander.  Germany and Korea have been able to recognize that there are two governments.  Whenever the leader of North Korea can seem more reasonable than someone else, that should indicate that someone has a serious problem. That there are two Chinas now does not preclude reunification into one China later.  Frankly, the biggest blunder we made with out China policy in the 70's was not requiring that the PRC recognize that the ROC existed as a separate government, entitled to full diplomatic relations and full membership in international bodies in exchange for turning over the Chinese veto power in the UN to the PRC.

Both the ROC and PRC Constitution both states that there is only One China.

[jaichind]

Ma and Xi will meet as "Leader of Taiwan region" and "Leader of Mainland region" respectively.  Both will refer to each other as "Mister."  This meets with my approval.  Neither can be referred  to as "President" as there is only One China and there can only be one President.  If we cannot agree which one that is they let there be none in the meantime.

Why can there only be one president?  This isn't Highlander.  Germany and Korea have been able to recognize that there are two governments.  Whenever the leader of North Korea can seem more reasonable than someone else, that should indicate that someone has a serious problem. That there are two Chinas now does not preclude reunification into one China later.  Frankly, the biggest blunder we made with out China policy in the 70's was not requiring that the PRC recognize that the ROC existed as a separate government, entitled to full diplomatic relations and full membership in international bodies in exchange for turning over the Chinese veto power in the UN to the PRC.

Had the PRC government accepted such a deal back in the 1970s it would have been overthrown.  Just like PRC accepts ROC as a separate Chinese state or accepted Taiwan Independence it will be overthrown.  It does not have to deliver unification anytime soon but if it gives ground on the topic of One China Principle it will be gone. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ma and Xi will meet as "Leader of Taiwan region" and "Leader of Mainland region" respectively.  Both will refer to each other as "Mister."  This meets with my approval.  Neither can be referred  to as "President" as there is only One China and there can only be one President.  If we cannot agree which one that is they let there be none in the meantime.

Why can there only be one president?  This isn't Highlander.  Germany and Korea have been able to recognize that there are two governments.  Whenever the leader of North Korea can seem more reasonable than someone else, that should indicate that someone has a serious problem. That there are two Chinas now does not preclude reunification into one China later.  Frankly, the biggest blunder we made with out China policy in the 70's was not requiring that the PRC recognize that the ROC existed as a separate government, entitled to full diplomatic relations and full membership in international bodies in exchange for turning over the Chinese veto power in the UN to the PRC.

Had the PRC government accepted such a deal back in the 1970s it would have been overthrown.  Just like PRC accepts ROC as a separate Chinese state or accepted Taiwan Independence it will be overthrown.  It does not have to deliver unification anytime soon but if it gives ground on the topic of One China Principle it will be gone.  

West Germany and East Germany managed to be civil to each other while maintaining that there was one Germany but two governments for the time being.  Even North and South Korea have managed to acknowledge that there were two governments for one Korea, tho they've rarely been all that civil about the fact.  Why is it that the PRC appears unable to understand the concept of temporary division with two states governing parts of one nation, at least as far as China is concerned.  It has been more than happy for two decades now to maintain diplomatic relations with both North and South Korea, thus exposing the hypocrisy of its position.

I can fully understand why the PRC will not accept a Republic of Taiwan, but it's hypersensitivity about the existence of the Republic of China betrays a level of gross insecurity that is childish for a country that claims to be a great power.

[warandwar]

It changed a bit after the Sunshine Policy, but North and South Korea still see themselves as the legitimate government for all Korea.

[2952-0-0]

I can fully understand why the PRC will not accept a Republic of Taiwan, but it's hypersensitivity about the existence of the Republic of China betrays a level of gross insecurity that is childish for a country that claims to be a great power.

The difference here, is that the DPRK and ROK were formed at the same time out of an extinct entity. The GDR and FRG were also formed at the same time out of an extinct entity. But the ROC was formed in 1912, and in the eyes of the PRC ceased to exist when it was officially proclaimed.

In any case, this will change little on the ground today. Both sides already have deep trade and social links which were/are never permitted in Korea and Germany.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can fully understand why the PRC will not accept a Republic of Taiwan, but it's hypersensitivity about the existence of the Republic of China betrays a level of gross insecurity that is childish for a country that claims to be a great power.

The difference here, is that the DPRK and ROK were formed at the same time out of an extinct entity. The GDR and FRG were also formed at the same time out of an extinct entity. But the ROC was formed in 1912, and in the eyes of the PRC ceased to exist when it was officially proclaimed.

I see something now. Because of the circumstances in which the PRC formed, it can't explicitly admit that the ROC is a legitimate government because that would implicitly admit that the PRC is an illegitimate government. Perhaps Taipei needs to take the first step and find some way to admit that the Beijing regime is legitimate while not ceding its status as the elder brother of Beijing. Now that Beijing has ended its one child policy, maybe it will become willing to admit that it isn't an only child.

[2952-0-0]

But it can't do so without expecting something major in return - which is unlikely to happen.

In any case there is no practical reason to do so. The flow of money, tourists, migrants, pop culture etc is already far larger than what is/was permitted in Germany and Korea. It's a solution in search of a problem. And, for better or for worse, with every passing year the relationship becomes ever more one sided. Even the hardcore pro-independence people know this.

Edit: actually, Taiwan already did this to some extent. Back in 1991 it declared the communist rebellion to be over, effectively relinquishing its aim to take back the mainland and therefore accepting the commies aren't going away. But the point still stands: no reason to play wordgames when the status quo is going well.

[jaichind]

1945



2015

[Tender Branson]

Your thread title is wrong:

The only regime is the one in Beijing.

Taiwan is led by a democratically elected President and government.

[Zioneer]

Your thread title is wrong:

The only regime is the one in Beijing.

Taiwan is led by a democratically elected President and government.

Is the difference between a regime and a "regular" government democracy? And also the OP might not have English as a first language.

[ingemann]

Your thread title is wrong:

The only regime is the one in Beijing.

Taiwan is led by a democratically elected President and government.

Is the difference between a regime and a "regular" government democracy? And also the OP might not have English as a first language.

I think it's more that regime is a neutral term, which have been used so often as a polite term for nondemocratic governments, that it have gotten the stench of being a term for dictatorship, we have seen the same thing happen for the Danish equalant.

[jaichind]

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/regime

"A regime is the ruling government of a country. The amount of freedom and restriction that citizens of a country have can change from regime to regime."

"Examples:
Washington
the federal government of the United States"

I used regime to try to be neutral.  Clearly I feel that the ROC is the one legal government of China.  But in the sprite of the summit which I very much support I wanted use terminology that is neutral as much as possible.

[Beezer]

In political science "regime" means nothing more than a form of government. At least in the everyday vernacular of German, it has negative connotations though (e.g. "das Assad-Regime").

[Frodo]

How did this meeting go?  Did anything of substance come of it?