Draft:One Country, Two Regions

One Country, Two Regions (Chinese: 一國兩區) is interpreted in Taiwan as One Republic of China, Two Regions and in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as One China, Two Regions or One Country, Two Regions. It was a cross-strait relations proposal put forward by the Kuomintang (KMT) in 2012 during President Ma Ying-jeou’s administration to the government of the People’s Republic of China.

Derived from the concepts of One China, Two Political Entities, Constitutional One China, and One China, Respective Interpretations, the Kuomintang argued that under the existing Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the Taiwan Area (Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu) is the free area and Mainland China is the mainland area. Both regions belong to the territory of the Republic of China (ROC) under its constitution. Relations between Taiwan and mainland China are not a special state-to-state relationship but a special region-to-region relationship. The two regions belong to the same China, and both the ROC and the PRC can claim to be China; they are in a mutually subordinate relationship.

In response, the PRC government, represented by Jia Qinglin, proposed One Country, Two Areas (兩岸一國) , stating that One Country, Two Regions indicated Taiwan’s acceptance of the One China framework and that both sides of the strait belong to one China. Director of the Taiwan Affairs Office Wang Yi explained that the proposal must not deviate from the One China principle, under which the PRC is the sole legitimate representative of China. It does not allow for an interpretation of “One China, Respective Interpretations” in which the ROC can represent China, as that would constitute Two Chinas or One China, One Taiwan—positions regarded as Taiwan independence rhetoric.

History

In March 2012, KMT Honorary Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung, while participating in KMT-CCP talks on the mainland, interpreted “One Country, Two Regions as One Country, Two Regions. The statement held that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one country and that the relationship is a special region-to-region one. Wu’s initial remarks did not explicitly define which country the “One Country” referred to. The Taiwan Affairs Office of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party spokesperson claimed this showed Taiwan also recognized the One China principle. National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin responded at the Cross-Strait Economic and Cultural Forum that both sides had confirmed they belong to one China, that cross-strait relations are not state-to-state, and that this marked a new starting point for mutual trust. In Taiwan, President Ma Ying-jeou stated in his 2012 inaugural address that it meant ‘’‘One China, Two Regions’’’. However, when KMT representatives attended meetings with the PRC government, they did not publicly state in open settings that the “One Country” referred specifically to the Republic of China. The KMT viewed the concept as an extension of the 1992 Consensus and Constitutional One China. They argued it reflected the ROC government’s framework under the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, whereby the ROC is currently divided into “free area” and “mainland area.” The ROC holds sovereignty over both, but its jurisdiction extends only to the free area (Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu).

Content

KMT Position

On March 22, 2012, KMT Honorary Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung met with CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao and stated:


The basis for the cross-strait relations we are now promoting is the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, which is founded on the legal concept of ‘One Country, Two Regions.’ The agency handling cross-strait affairs is the Mainland Affairs Council, not the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This alone demonstrates that cross-strait relations are not state-to-state but a special relationship.

To avoid confusion with “One Country, Two Systems,” Wu later told reporters: “Look at the Additional Articles of our Constitution and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. It is very clear: the concepts of mainland area and Taiwan area are already there—that is why it is called the ‘People’s Relations Act.’ If anyone still misinterprets ‘One Country, Two Regions,’ they are doing so deliberately.”

KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou, at a Central Standing Committee meeting on March 28, cited a 1992 media report in which then-Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Huang Kun-hui told the Legislative Yuan that the mainland policy was implemented in “One Country, Two Regions, Three Stages.” Ma emphasized that this constitutional framework had historical context: “One Republic of China, Two Regions” refers to the Taiwan area and mainland area under the current constitutional reality, demonstrating the subjectivity of the Republic of China. He stressed that “this is nothing new and has not been given new meaning. For twenty years—from President Lee Teng-hui, President Chen Shui-bian, to myself—it has not changed.”

Premier Chen Chun stated: “The phrasing of ‘One Country, Two Regions’ (mainland area and Taiwan area) is ‘exactly the same as our original understanding,’ because Article 11 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution contains relevant provisions. This is why the Cross-Strait Relations Act exists.”

Presidential Office Spokesperson Fan Chiang Tai-chi explained: The two sides of the strait are in a special relationship of mutual non-recognition of sovereignty and mutual non-denial of jurisdiction. Under the Constitution of the Republic of China and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the Taiwan area refers to “Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and any other areas under the effective control of the government,” while the mainland area refers to ROC territory outside the Taiwan area. Both belong to the Republic of China, and “One China” means the Republic of China.

In his May 20, 2012, inaugural address, Ma Ying-jeou reaffirmed “One Republic of China, Two Regions” as the guiding policy toward mainland China for the next four years. He advocated that the two sides should mutually non-recognize sovereignty and mutually non-deny jurisdiction, drawing on the Two Germanys model.

Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan noted that outsiders should not simplify “One Republic of China, Two Regions” into “One Country, Two Regions.” “One China” refers to the sovereign, independent Republic of China—there is no other interpretation.

In 2016, KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu reiterated at a youth elite consensus camp that, under the ROC Constitution, cross-strait relations are region-to-region relations.

Official KMT definition of One Country, Two Regions:

  • Both sides of the strait uphold the One China principle, but the meaning each side assigns differs. The CCP authorities believe One China means the People’s Republic of China, and after future unification Taiwan will become a special administrative region under its jurisdiction. Our side believes One China refers to the Republic of China founded in 1912, with sovereignty over all of China, but current jurisdiction limited to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. Taiwan is part of China, and the mainland is also part of China.
  • Since 1949, China has been in a temporary state of division, governed separately by two political entities across the strait—an objective fact that any unification proposal cannot ignore.
  • The ROC government has formulated the National Unification Guidelines to seek consensus and advance unification for national development, prosperity, and the people’s well-being. We deeply hope the mainland authorities will be pragmatic, set aside prejudices, cooperate, and contribute wisdom and strength toward building one China that is free, democratic, and prosperous.
CPP Response

At the 8th Cross-Strait Economic and Cultural Forum, CCP Politburo Standing Committee member and CPPCC Chairman Jia Qinglin responded that confirming the objective facts—no division of China’s territory and sovereignty, both sides belonging to one China, and cross-strait relations not being state-to-state—would help safeguard the One China framework and promote peaceful development of cross-strait relations.

Reactions in Taiwan

Support

KMT legislators Hsu Yao-chang and Chen Hsueh-sheng argued that Wu Poh-hsiung’s proposal merely stated the position firmly without entering political negotiations and had no relation to “One Country, Two Systems.” They questioned whether critics calling Ma “Mayor Ma” implied that during the Chen Shui-bian era it was “Mayor Chen.” DPP New Tide faction elder Hung Chi-chang and former legislator Kuo Cheng-liang stated at the Taipei Forum that “One Country, Two Regions” does not violate the Constitution. They argued it derives from the English concept of “Legal Territory,” noting that the ROC Constitution’s legal territory differs from its actual jurisdiction, so legally there is no problem.

The “China Unification Alliance” issued a statement on March 26 supporting the proposal, saying it would enhance cross-strait political mutual trust and create favorable conditions for political dialogue. They noted that the 1991 constitutional amendments explicitly referenced “before national unification” and that the Additional Articles and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area have always maintained the “One Country, Two Regions” framework.

Opposition

Former President Lee Teng-hui criticized Ma Ying-jeou for distorting history, falling into the “One China framework,” and engaging in democratic regression and authoritarian restoration—most regrettably without taking responsibility. Former Vice President Annette Lu said Ma’s “One Country, Two Regions” formulation reduced the Republic of China to something less than a country, as no one except Ma believes “One China” refers to the Republic of China; it was self-deception. DPP and Taiwan Solidarity Union legislators strongly condemned the proposal.

DPP

In 2002, then-Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen emphasized that the legal concept of “One Country, Two Regions” in the Cross-Strait Relations Act should not be adjusted lightly, as it involved changes to the constitutional framework. 2012 DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen called the phrasing “quite dangerous” and demanded Ma explain the difference between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China and their relationship. On May 14 she published an open letter stating that “One Country, Two Regions” violated the spirit of the Constitution. She argued it retreated from the ambiguous “One China, Respective Interpretations” to “One China, Joint Interpretation,” gradually eroding Taiwan’s subjectivity and denying its statehood. She posed three questions to Ma: (1) Is Taiwan a country? (2) Do the ROC/Taiwan and the PRC belong to the same country? (3) Will future government interactions with the mainland follow the KMT-CCP consensus based on “One Country, Two Regions”? DPP acting chair and Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu stressed maintaining the status quo: Taiwan is the “Republic of China,” a “sovereign independent country.” DPP spokesperson Lo Chih-cheng criticized the proposal’s greatest danger as not only downgrading Taiwan to a region but defining the two sides as the same country—contrary to public will and altering the status quo. Other DPP figures accused Ma of changing the status quo without public consent or democratic process and of deciding national sovereignty through secret KMT-CCP negotiations.

TSU

Taiwan Solidarity Union Chairman Huang Kun-hui angrily denounced Ma for accepting the idea, comparing it to signing a new Treaty of Shimonoseki and handing Taiwan’s sovereignty to mainland China. He argued the Cross-Strait Relations Act regulates interactions as quasi-international relations, and Lee Teng-hui’s special state-to-state relationship was the correct interpretation; using the Act to justify “One Country, Two Regions” was a malicious distortion.

Questioning
PFP

People First Party Chairman James Soong raised three doubts: any decision on major national positioning issues must be rigorous and cautious, yet Ma acted unilaterally (as with the earlier “Cross-Strait Peace Agreement” proposal), without consulting the Mainland Affairs Council or other agencies, and the proposer held no government position—an irresponsible approach. He also accused Ma and Wu of confusing operational-level concepts with constitutional ones.

Public Opinion Polls

A DPP poll (March 29, 2012, 95% confidence level, ±2.73% margin of error) found:

  • 60% of respondents rejected “One Country, Two Regions” as the cross-strait relationship;
  • 62% believed it downgraded national sovereignty;
  • 78% believed Taiwan and mainland China are not the same country;
  • 81.2% supported the DPP’s Taiwan Future Resolution that “Taiwan is a sovereign independent country” and any change must be decided by referendum.

The Mainland Affairs Council-commissioned National Chengchi University poll (March 30–April 2) showed “maintain status quo forever” at 29.9% (rising), “maintain status quo and decide later” at 32.4%, pro-independence at 21.8%, and pro-unification at only 9.7%. Over 90% did not support unification.

Media and Civil Society

Pan-green media such as the Liberty Times and Apple Daily criticized the proposal. Civil society groups, including the Taiwan Independence Alliance, Taiwan Professors Association, and Taiwan Society, condemned it as damaging Taiwan’s statehood and called for constitutional reform to clarify “state-to-state” relations and remove unification language from the Additional Articles.

Opinions from Various Parties

PRC (Mainland China)

Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Yang Yi (March 29, 2012) stated that as long as the One China principle is recognized, other issues can be discussed. On May 30 he reiterated that the PRC does not accept the Two Germanys model because China’s sovereignty and territory have never been divided and “both sides belong to one China” is an objective fact.

United States United States

U.S. government officials privately and publicly expressed puzzlement and concern to President Ma, hoping for clarification. Some members of Congress, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, requested further explanation during Ma’s inauguration delegation visit.

Japan Japan

Japan also expressed confusion over the proposal, fearing it could tilt Taiwan excessively toward the mainland and alter the Asia-Pacific status quo. It advised the Legislative Yuan’s Taiwan-Japan Friendship Association to strengthen parliamentary diplomacy.

See also

Category:Chinese unification

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.