Talk:Special non-state-to-state relations

merge

This page is about a response to the Special state-to-state relations proposed by President Lee. The term "Special non-state-to-state relations" is not become a frequently used phrase and should not be an article. Information about President Ma's repudiation of "special state-to-state relations" can be found on that page. His repudiation does not need its own page. Readin (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

They are different though. It is like One Country on Each Side is an expansion on Lee's Special state-to-state relations. It also should be left alone as a separate article. Each president defines how he sees the cross-strait relations and my view is they are separate. People who want to know more about Ma's statement are not going to look for it under the "Special state-to-state relations" article. When editors want to cite Ma's statement, they don't necessarily want to cite Lee's statement as well.

Also terms like "One country on Each Side", "Four Noes and One Without" or "Four Wants and One Without" aren't typical search terms either. They are peculiar to Taiwan's politics and the names are translated directly from their Chinese counterparts. --pyl (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that each needs its own article. I didn't realize there were so many articles until I started to follow the links. Most of these articles are very short and make little sense out of context. We should try to consolidate many of them into a single article that can explain each one and put them in context and perhaps chronological order.

As for this particular article compared to the others: "Special state-to-state relations" was a big deal that got a lot of press and was criticized by using the exact quote both by foreign and domestic leaders. I don't believe "Special non-state-to-state relations" has received similar attention or has become a catch-phrase. Some of the other examples you give are less familiar to me, but they sound like the kind of four-character phrases/idioms so common in the Chinese language, and I suspect they also are used as well-known short names for different ideas. "Special non-state-to-state relations" needs to have some references to show that it has entered into the common vernacular or I'll have to merge this article into the "Special state-to-state relations", as Ma's comments were clearly intended as a repudiation of "Special state-to-state relations", not as an independent idea. Readin (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Special non-state-to-state relations" hasn't attracted as much attention as the "Special state-to-state relations" because, I suspect, it didn't attract the rather nasty words from mainland China? But in all seriousness, "Special non-state-to-state relations" is the term that people refer to when they want to talk about Ma's statement. If you can understand basic Chinese try search for "特殊非國與國關係" in Google. You will notice lots of results. As I mentioned to you earlier, it is important to Taiwan's politics.

It is not just a repudiation of the "Special state-to-state relations" if you read the content. It didn't just say, no, Taiwan and Mainland China are not two countries and leave it at that. It is Ma's theory to the current cross-strait relations, and he went into detail to explain why he said that.

Look at Chen's "One Country on Each Side". It is an expansion on Lee's theory. It basically says the relations aren't even special. They are two states. I think it deserves to be an article on its own. It is the same as other theories, editors can just mention a couple of sentences and give a link to these articles so the readers will get a fuller view.

If an editor wants to the readers to understand more about what Ma or Chen said, he or she wouldn't want the readers to go into Lee's "Special state-to-state relations" and look for it. They are different things.

For example, when I did the 1992 Consensus, I did the following:-

"On 2 September 2008 the ROC President Ma Jing-jeou was interviewed by the Mexico based newspaper Sol de Mexico and he was asked about his views on the subject of 'two Chinas' and if there is a solution for the sovereignty issues between the two. The ROC President replied that the relations are neither between two Chinas nor two states. It is a special relationship."

Or this is what I did in the "History of Taiwan" article:-

"In 2007, President Chen proposed a policy of Four Wants and One Without, which in substances states that Taiwan wants independence; Taiwan wants the rectification of its name; Taiwan wants a new constitution; Taiwan wants development; and Taiwanese politics is without the question of left or right, but only the question of unification or independence."

I don't want to go into Lee's article and expect the readers to find Ma or Chen's statement.

All these theories are organised in Template:Cross-Strait_relations as "Concepts".

Maybe we should have a separate article to include all these theories. But I think the theories should be in separate articles as well. You will note that they are separate in other languages too, such as Chinese.--pyl (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that no active discussion has been conducted on this subject for a while, I propose to remove the merger tag in the next couple of days. Please let me know if this is not appropriate.--pyl (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lee Teng-hui?

Saw on TV commentators describing Ma's position as "One Country, Two Areas" (一國兩區), which is clearly a reference to the early Lee Teng-hui position. Interestingly, at the time Lee's definition was denounced by the PRC: 1990 PRC press release. There's an article from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences exploring the links between the two: [1]

Should we describe Lee's pronouncement and reactions to that from back then? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should talk about it, but I am not sure if this article is the best place for it. Ma never said that his theory was from Lee's "One Country, Two Areas", although he acknowledged that his theory was not new. Maybe Lee's "Special State-to-State Relations" or a new article is a better idea, but I am not sure. Would you like to start writing it in this article, and if it is not suitable, then we can move the contents elsewhere. --pyl (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hou Yu-ih’s reiteration

https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2023-08-02/882471 – Kaihsu (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)