The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue
(White Paper on Taiwan issue)
IV. Several Questions Involving the One-China Principle in the Cross-Straits Relations
Chinese territory and sovereignty has not been split, and the two sides of the Straits are not two states. The Taiwan authorities support their position on "two Chinas," including the "two states" theory proposed by Lee Teng-hui, with the following arguments: Since 1949, the territories on either side of the Straits have been divided and governed separately, with neither side having jurisdiction over the other; the government of the PRC has never ruled Taiwan; and since 1991 Taiwan has witnessed a form of government that has nothing to do with that of the Chinese mainland. These arguments are absolutely untenable, and can never lead to the conclusion that Taiwan may declare itself a state under the name of the "Republic of China," or that the two sides of the Straits have been divided into two states. Firstly, state sovereignty is inseparable. The territory is the space in which a state exercises its sovereignty. In the territory of a country there can only be a central government exercising sovereignty on behalf of the state. As we have already said, Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory and, after replacing the government of the Republic of China in 1949, the government of the PRC has become the sole legal government of China, enjoying and exercising sovereignty over the whole of China, including Taiwan.
Although the two sides of the Straits have not been reunified, Taiwan's status as a part of Chinese territory has never changed, neither, therefore, has China's sovereignty over Taiwan ever changed. Secondly, the international community recognizes that there is only one China, that Taiwan is a part of China, and that the government of the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. Thirdly, the reason that the Taiwan question has not been settled for such a long period of time is mainly due to the intervention of foreign forces and the obstruction of the separatist forces in Taiwan.
Although the two sides of the Straits remain to be reunified, the long-term existence of this abnormal situation has not imbued Taiwan with a status and rights in international law, nor can it change the legal status of Taiwan as a part of China. The problem now is that the separatists in Taiwan and some foreign anti-China forces seek to change this state of affairs, and it is this that the Chinese Government and people are firmly against.
We firmly oppose changing Taiwan's status as a part of China by referendum. The Taiwan separatists' attempt to change Taiwan's status as a part of China by referendum on the pretext that " sovereignty belongs to the people" is futile. Firstly, under both domestic and international laws Taiwan's legal status as a part of Chinese territory is unequivocal, and there can be no premise for using referendum to decide any matter of self-determination. Secondly, the phrase "sovereignty belongs to the people" refers to all the people of a state, and not certain people or the people of a certain area. The sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people including Taiwan compatriots, and not to some of the people in Taiwan. Thirdly, at no time in history has Taiwan been a state in its own right, and since 1945 Taiwan has not been a foreign colony, nor has it been under foreign occupation. The issue of national self-determination, therefore, does not exist. In short, from the time that China recovered Taiwan in 1945, there has been no question at all of changing Taiwan's status as a part of China by holding a referendum. The only future for Taiwan is reunification with the China mainland, and certainly not separation. Any attempt to separate Taiwan from China through so-called referendum would only lead the Taiwan people to disaster.
The "two German states formula" cannot be applied to the settlement of the Taiwan issue. Some people in Taiwan have suggested that cross-Straits relations should be dealt with according to the "two German states formula," since Germany was divided into two states after World War II, and was later reunified. This proposal shows a misunderstanding of history and reality. The division of Germany after the war and the temporary division between the two sides of the Straits are questions of a different nature, the difference lying mainly in three aspects. The first is the reasons for, and the nature of, the division. After its defeat in World War II in 1945, Germany was divided into zones occupied separately by the four victorious nations of the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union according to a declaration on the defeat of Germany and the assumption of supreme authority and the subsequent Potsdam Agreement. The reunification of Germany became a focus of the confrontation in Europe between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic were established in the zones occupied by the United States, Britain and France, and that occupied by the Soviet Union. Thus Germany was divided into two states. Obviously, the German question arose entirely from external factors, while the Taiwan issue, left over by China's civil war, is a matter of China's internal affairs. The second aspect is the difference in status between the two under international law. Germany was divided according to a series of international treaties during and after World War II, while the Taiwan question involves provisions of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international treaties, stating that Japan must return Taiwan, which it had stolen from China, to the Chinese. The third is the difference between the two in their actual conditions of existence.
Against the backdrop of the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two German states had foreign troops stationed in their territories and so were compelled to recognize each other and co-exist in the international community. The Chinese Government has always persisted in the principle of one China. Before Lee Teng-hui assumed power, and during his early days in office, the Taiwan authorities recognized only one China and opposed "two Chinas," and the One-China Principle has also been widely accepted by the international community. For these reasons, the Taiwan issue and the German issue cannot be placed in the same category, nor can the "two German states formula" be copied to settle the Taiwan question.
Any question can be discussed under the One-China Principle. The Chinese Government advocates that the final purpose of cross- Straits negotiations is to achieve peaceful reunification; and that to achieve this purpose, talks should be held based on the principle of one China. However, the proposals for "Taiwan independence," "two Chinas" and "two states," aiming for separation instead of reunification, violate the One-China Principle, and are naturally unacceptable to the Chinese Government. Provided that it is within the framework of one China, any question can be discussed, including the various issues that are of concern to the Taiwan side. The Chinese Government believes that Taiwan's international space for economic, cultural and social activities compatible with its status, the political status of the Taiwan authorities and other questions can be finally settled in the process of peaceful reunification through political negotiations within this framework.
The so-called controversy about democracy and system is an excuse for obstructing the reunification of China. In recent years the Taiwan authorities have repeatedly declared that "democratization on the China mainland is the key to the reunification of China" and that "the real essence of the cross- Straits issue is a contest between systems." This is an excuse for postponing and resisting reunification, as well as a scheme to deceive compatriots in Taiwan and world opinion. The CPC and the Chinese Government have consistently striven to achieve socialist democracy. To achieve peaceful reunification in the form of "one country, two systems," and to allow the two different social systems on both sides of the Straits to coexist without imposing them on one or the other: this is best able to embody the wishes of compatriots on both sides of the Straits and is itself democratic. The different social systems across the Straits, therefore, should not constitute a barrier to peaceful reunification. Moreover, the Chinese Government acknowledges the differences between Taiwan on the one hand and Hong Kong and Macao on the other and, after peaceful reunification, is prepared to apply a looser form of the "one country, two systems" policy in Taiwan than in Hong Kong and Macao. It is totally unreasonable and undemocratic for the Taiwan authorities to seek to obstruct reunification on the pretext of the "controversy about democracy and system" and to force the more than 1.2 billion people living on the Chinese mainland to practise the political and economic systems in Taiwan. The demand for democracy should not be used as a reason for refusing reunification. The essence of the difference between the two sides of the Straits on this question lies by no means in the controversy over whether to practise democracy or in the controversy over what system to practise, but rather a controversy over the choice between reunification and separation.