“One China” is purposefully and diplomatically vague. I cover at least three different interpretations in my post.
While getting hung up on definitions, you missed the point I was trying to make in that Clinton and Bush administrations had a de facto two Chinas policy while paying lip service to the one China idea.
“One China” is purposefully and diplomatically vague. I cover at least three different interpretations in my post.
Sure, but what seemed to be missing in your comment is any acknowledgement that the Taiwan leadership itself has agreed and even insisted on the “One China” principle in the past—or at least, some version of it. Of course, this may or may not change in the future, given that the political party now leading Taiwanese internal politics is known to lean towards some sort of ‘independence’ for the island, but even then, we’re still quite far from any kind of real shift.
I took it as assumed background information, and it was implied by the fact that the nationalist government was moving into a one-state solution with the free trade deals. However only the now-deposed nationalist party in Taiwan held a one China policy. The current government is pro-independence (which isn’t quite the same thing as two Chinas). They don’t lean towards independence, they ARE the independence party. They pretty much let themselves be fully defined by their stance on this one single issue. And it’s a dangerous stance to take given that all it does is provoke an aggressor while simultaneously giving up justifications for allies to come to its aid.
“One China” is purposefully and diplomatically vague. I cover at least three different interpretations in my post.
While getting hung up on definitions, you missed the point I was trying to make in that Clinton and Bush administrations had a de facto two Chinas policy while paying lip service to the one China idea.
Sure, but what seemed to be missing in your comment is any acknowledgement that the Taiwan leadership itself has agreed and even insisted on the “One China” principle in the past—or at least, some version of it. Of course, this may or may not change in the future, given that the political party now leading Taiwanese internal politics is known to lean towards some sort of ‘independence’ for the island, but even then, we’re still quite far from any kind of real shift.
I took it as assumed background information, and it was implied by the fact that the nationalist government was moving into a one-state solution with the free trade deals. However only the now-deposed nationalist party in Taiwan held a one China policy. The current government is pro-independence (which isn’t quite the same thing as two Chinas). They don’t lean towards independence, they ARE the independence party. They pretty much let themselves be fully defined by their stance on this one single issue. And it’s a dangerous stance to take given that all it does is provoke an aggressor while simultaneously giving up justifications for allies to come to its aid.