Taiwan and the One Country, Two Systems - Essay Example

TAIWAN and the “One Country, Two Systems” Principle: Literature Review History of Taiwan The Taiwan is derived from the aboriginal people and means “a beautiful highland”. The history of Taiwan relates to people who live in Taiwan. Historians have dated the human habitation of Taiwan to date back for many years. The abrupt appearance of the agrarian culture during 3000 is believed to be the origin of the present Taiwanese aborigines. This highland was under the Dutch colony during the 17th century, who were subsequently followed by the Han Chinese from Fujian and the Mainland China. There were also groups of Spanish who briefly settled in the northern part of the Island, but were moved out by the Dutch in 1642 (Hungdah, 1979, 45). In 1662, Koxinga Zheng who was a loyalist of the Ming Dynasty, which had surrendered its control of the mainland China fought with the Dutch colonizers and defeated them. After this defeat, he then established the island as the base of his operations. However, Zheng and his forces were later defeated by the Qing Dynasty in 1683. This defeat saw most parts Taiwan being incorporated into the Qing Dynasty before eventually being ceded into the Empire of Japan in 1895, after the first Japanese-sino war. Taiwan became a producer of sugar and rice which were then exported to the Japan empire and also serving as a base for expansion of Japanese colonies in the Pacific and South east Asia during the second world war. The Japanese implemented their imperial education in the island and many Taiwanese supported the Japanese in this war (Chiu, 2008, 34). After the Second World War, the Republic of China, led by their leader by then, was the governing polity in the island. Following the Chinese civil war in 1949, the government of the republic of China withdrew their control of Taiwan. In 1952, Japan officially renounced all territorial rights in San Francisco Peace Treaty. The KMT ruled Taiwan as a single party state for four decades, until democracy was realized in 1980s. These reforms which were instigated by Chiang Ching-kuo who was then the leader in the mainland china were continued by his predecessor Lee Teng-hui, which eventually led to the first presidential election in the island in 1996. Until today, the island is a democracy with a presidential system of governance (Henckaerts, 1996, 337). History and creation of “one country, two systems” policy (Deng Xiaoping) “One country, two systems “translated as “one China, two systems” is a constitutional principle that was established by Deng Xiaoping. Deng Xiaoping was an executive leader of the People’s Republic of China. His purpose in formulating this principle was majorly to reunify China during the early 1980s. This leader gave suggestions for the establishment of only one China, but different regions such as Macau, Taiwan and Hong Kong to retain their capitalist political and economic systems while the rest of China to remain on a socialist system. Under this principle, Macau, Taiwan and Hong Kong regions should go on with their legal, political, financial or economic affairs including how they relate with other foreign states. Taiwan was to continue maintaining its own military forces (Wong, 2004, 11). Deng Xiaoping went further to propose that principle of one “country two systems are applied in Hong Kong as well. He negotiated with Margret Thatcher, the British prime minister concerning the future of Hongkong after the expiry of new territories by the U.K in 1997. Deng Xiaoping also proposed the similar principal on Macau with Portugal authorities (Luo, 2004. 45). The principle of one country, two systems is that after reunification, despite the socialism practice in the mainland China, both Macau and Hongkong, which were the Portugal and UK colonies respectively may be allowed to establish their established systems, five decades after reunification. However, it has not been publicly stated on what is going to happen after 2047, after the 50-year period is over (China.org, 2008, 2). Methodology This study will apply qualitative methodology, which will be used in finding common literature in relation to the topic under study. Most of the information and literature in this study was sourced from www.altavista.com, www.infoseek.go.com, www.google.com and other peer-reviewed journals such as Academic Search Premier, JSTOR and Business Source Premier and other government websites. These journals were very helpful in exploring studies that were related to principle of “one country, two systems”. The technique employed in finding these journals included using key search words associated with the topic in the identified websites and databases. Theory The principle of one country, two systems is that after reunification, despite the socialism practice in the mainland China, both Macau and Hongkong, which were the Portugal and UK colonies respectively may be allowed to establish their established systems, five decades after reunification. However, it has not been publicly stated on what is going to happen after 2047, after the 50 year period is over (China.org, 2008, 2). According to China’s constitution, the central government of People’s Republic of China is responsible for the defense of the SARS as well as in foreign affairs. The SARS are free to send their representatives to the central government as members of the PRC. In diplomatic negotiations that that may directly affect the regions and in other international meetings that are not limited to states, SARS may decide to participate using their names China, Hong Kong and Macau. Literature Review In Hong Kong, the one country, two-system policy has been implemented through Hong Kong’s basic law. This law serves as the mini constitution of these regions and is in line with the British-Sino joint declaration. Such arrangements are also noted in Macau. Under the respective basic laws, the special administration units or SARS as these regions are identified are given autonomy; enjoy independent judicial and legislative power including the final adjudication. These special regions are allowed to formulate their own financial and monetary policies, formulate their own policies regarding such aspects as sports, education, culture, social welfare systems and others within the foundation of their basic laws (McDonald, 2005, 2). According to China’s constitution, the central government of People’s Republic of China is responsible for the defense of the SARS as well as in foreign affairs. The SARS are free to send their representatives to the central government as members of the PRC. In diplomatic negotiations that that may directly affect the regions and in other international meetings that are not limited to states, SARS may decide to participate using their names China, Hong Kong and Macau. As separate economic states, China Macau and Hong Kong are both members of the world organization as well as the APEC (Chinas Foreign Ministry, 2012, 2). Some analysts and international rights organizations have been doubtful regarding the future of the relative political autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong and Macau. There have also been doubts on China’s pledge to provide Hong Kong with a high level of autonomy. Such observers have based their arguments on Article 23 of the country’s constitution, which did not allow such autonomy. However, this article was removed due to mass protests. Despite this, both the governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China consider the implementation of that principle to have been a success in Hong Kong. This assumption has been backed by officials by United States and United Kingdom (Straw, 2005, 2). The people’s republic of China maintains relations with the government of Hong Kong through the liaison office of China’s central government in Hong Kong. For Macau, the liaison office uses the Macau special administrative region in Macau for that purpose (Chiu, 2008, 6). The republic of China has been reluctant to implement the similar principle for Taiwan, despite numerous proposals by the Taiwan government. This is despite the claims that such systems were initially designed for Taiwan. Majority of the parties in Taiwan, including those that support the Chinese reunification have strongly opposed the one “one country, two system principle”. There are others who have proposed the “one country, two governments” a system which was strongly objected by the Chinese community party, while others have suggested the one “country system”. They argue that in “one country, two systems”, China should actually be the republic of China and not the people’s republic of China (Chiu, 2008, 7). The “one country, two systems have a prospect of guaranteeing than Hong Kong’s political and economic systems will not be altered for the 50 years after the handover to Britain, there are several cases which have been cited by the mainland China claiming that China has breached the right of people in Hong Kong for self rule. They also argue that the principle has adversely affected the freedom of speech and judicial systems (MediaCorp, 2007, 11). Proposals for the “one country two system principle” have also been experienced in Tibet. These proposals emerged as an attempt of advocating for independence in Tibetan. However, these proposals have been opposed by the state media, which argued that the “one country, two systems was basically established for the established social systems of Macau and Hong Kong, aspects that are nonexistent in Tibet (Chiu, 1979, 11). In spite of the much doubts concerning the success of Hong Kong’s “one country and two systems principle, there are nations which have found inspiration from this kind of model and incorporated or plans to incorporate it in their governance. For example, there has been an agreement that was reached between the government of Philippine and Muslim rebel groups. This plan was almost similar as the “one country, two systems”. Although the plan is still underway, the provision of autonomy for the Muslim group that approximate four million people in the Mindanao island promises autonomy, and self governance under the country’s constitution (CMP, 2012, 1). A report issued by the U.S speaker’s Task Force on Hong Kong Transition in 2002, noted that the one “country, two system principle” has enabled Hong Kong to maintain its peculiar character it currently enjoys. Success on a long-term basis has depended on the quality and preservation of Hong Kong’s outstanding cadre of civil servants, independent judiciary and the rule of law. The state depends on “four pillars” of success, which are still rife and significant in today’s perspective. These four pillars include the common law system, which upheld the independent judiciary, the unfettered and free flow of information, a respectable and clean civil service and a level playing field for all legitimate businesses (Henckaerts, 1996, 337). Hong Kong’s basic constitution has provided a constitutional basis on which the special administrative region for Hong Kong has continued to protect its economic system. It has also protected the people’s social life, freedoms and right of the citizens. The rights that have been protected include freedom to own property, equality of all people, freedom of assembly, religious freedoms, freedom of movements, freedom of academic research, trade unions and so on (US Speakers Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition, 2002, 1). Analysis For present purposes, the principle of “one country, two systems” can be divided into economic affairs and political one. It should be considered that in both spectrums, the basic law and the joint declarations that led to these entities to be declared as special administrative regions gave Macau and Hong Kong a striking degree of liberty and autonomy in managing its affairs. Based on this review, there is no doubt that the principle of “one country, two systems have been a striking success for Hong Kong and Macau, economically, socially and politically. One of the testaments to this success is the holding of the sixth ministerial meeting of the world trade organization in Hong Kong in 2005. The remarkable level of autonomy in governance, which the two entities have enjoyed, was in many perspectives, economically, socially, politically, and legally and so on. The political freedoms vested by these entities have in turn facilitated economic development. This autonomy have also made it possible for organizations that are either represented or located in Hong Kong or Macaus to benefit out of this position and the commercial opportunities that are created out of this. For Macau and Hong Kong “one country, two systems” brings with it not only obligations and responsibilities, but also pride and glory, more freedoms, right and opportunities. They have actually realized that “one country, two systems is not a burden but a benefit, an advantage and growth engine. As Hu observed, the great motherland will always offer them strong backing for their stability and prosperity. However, despite the fact that this formulae has worked very well in Hong Kong and Macau, this principal may not work effectively in Taiwan perspective. This owes to the many differences between that are existing between Taiwan and other SAR of Hong Kong and Macau. For instance, Unlike Tawain, which regards itself as an independent state since General Chiang Kai-shek to present, Hong Kong, is a territory leased by Britain. There is therefore a wide gap between these cases. It is also apparent that the offer by China of a “one country, two system, may not be able to satisfy the longing for Taiwanese of achieving greater liberty under the democratic system of governance. In fact, this question of implementing a “one country, two systems should not even pop up in the first place in the perspective of Taiwan. Instead, the highland should be identified as a democratic reality, which should be assisted to develop, and not really hindered. Conclusion Overall, the author’s view remains that the principle of “one country, two systems” has been a reality in Hong Kong and Macau perspective. The judicial independence and rule of law have been so crucial for the success of these entities. Essential freedom and rights have been duly protected and challenges have been streamlined. The stability of Hong Kong and Macau and the consistent development of these entities as international cities have been attributed to the concept of “one country, two systems. Such a framework has ensured that Hong Kong and Macau have maintained their strengths and identity as international business, aviation, shipping and financial centers. Practices in these two entities have confirmed that the concept of “one country, two systems may be effective since renown achievements have been realized from Hong Kong and Macau out of the same. However, despite the fact that this formulae has worked very well in Hong Kong and Macau, this principal may not work effectively in Taiwan perspective. This owes to the many differences between that are existing between Taiwan and other SAR of Hong Kong and Macau. For instance, Unlike Tawain, which regards itself as an independent state since General Chiang Kai-shek to present, Hong Kong, is a territory leased by Britain. There is therefore a wide gap between this case. It is also apparent that the offer by China of a “one country, two system, may not be able to satisfy the longing for Taiwanese of achieving greater liberty under the democratic system of governance. In fact, this question of implementing a “one country, two systems should not even pop up in the first place in the perspective of Taiwan. Instead, the highland should be identified as a democratic reality, which should be assisted to develop, and not really hindered. . Reference List Chiu, H 1979, ‘China and the Taiwan Issue’ London: Praeger Publishers Inc. ISBN 0-03-048911-3. Chiu, H 2008, ‘The Colonial Civilizing Process in Dutch Formosa’, 1624–1662, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-0416507-6 CMP, 2012, ‘Hong Kongs one country, two systems gives hope for Manila’, Available from http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1061232/hong-kongs-one-country-two-systems-gives-hope-manila China.org.cn. 2008, ‘One Country, Two Systems’. Available from http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_1.html China Tibet Information Center (Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China in the United States). Available from http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Hopes-grow-as-second- Taiwan-leader-visits-China/2005/05/12/1115843308418.html Henckaerts, J M 1996, ‘The International Status of Taiwan’ In the New World Order Kluwer Law International. p. 337. ISBN 90-411-0929-3. Luo, J 2004, ‘Over A Cup of Tea: An Introduction to Chinese Life and Culture’ University Press America. China. ISBN 0-7618-29 McDonald, H, 2005, Hopes grow as second Taiwan leader visits China, http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Hopes-grow-as-second-Taiwan-leader-visits-China/2005/05/12/1115843308418.html MediaCorp News. 2006, Available from http://www16.mediacorp.sg/maintenance/cna/index.htm Straw,F . The Age Available from http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_1.html Straw,J 2002, ‘ Report on Hong Kong, July-December 2001, presented to the British Parliament’, March 2002 The Commissioners Office of Chinas Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong SAR 2012, Available from http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zgxz/t265334.htm US Speakers Task Force on the Hong Kong Transition, 2002, Ninth Report, January 30, 2002 .Wong, Y 2004, ‘One Country, Two Systems in Crisis: Hong Kongs Transformation’. Lexington Books. Hong Kong. ISBN 0-7391-0492-6. Read More