One China Agreement

Office of the President, “The President participates in the Conference on International Law in 2012,” 24 May 2012; On 30 May 2012, the Beijing BAT rejected the use of the two Germans` model, saying that “the situation of the “two Germans” is different from that on both sides of the road.” On 25 February 2014, President Ma again quoted the German model “one Germany, two states” and referred to the basic treaty between West and East Germany. (This basic treaty of 21 December 1972 recognized two German states in a special relationship and both sides opened permanent embassies in both German states, not embassies.) In an interview with german media on 22 September 2014, Ma quoted the German model as saying: “The 1972 agreement went so far as to recognise the territory of East and West Germany, but they did not recognize sovereignty. … So what I am trying to say is that this is a very delicate manoeuvre, and although we are working together, we are using it as a reference, but we have not yet used the idea of Germany, two states or Germany, two states, because it is also going to have a constitutional problem in my country. See Office of the President, Press Release, September 25, 2014; and “Deutsche Welle corrects the misrepresentation of President Mas` comment,” NAC, September 26, 2014. On September 17 and 27, 1982, the Senate Subcommittee on Violence Separation held hearings and then briefed the Department of Foreign Affairs to investigate “obvious conflicts” between the 1982 Reagan administration`s municipal administration and the TRA and seek clarification from Foreign Minister George Shultz on Taiwan policy. He replied that “determining Taiwan`s defence needs and sufficient self-defence capability requires an assessment of the nature of the military threat it faces. This necessarily requires an assessment of the military capability of the PRC and its policy towards Taiwan. Among the detailed responses, Shultz also responded that U.S. arms sales do not violate China`s sovereignty; that the United States does not take a position on the issue of Taiwan`s sovereignty; and that the communiqué is not an international agreement.

Lawyers for the U.S. State Department and the Department of Justice said the August 17, 1982 release contained “parallel and interconnected political statements from the United States and China.” Moreover, “they are not international agreements and do not oblige partisan commitments. Its status in domestic law is that of a statement by the President of the United States on a policy he intends to pursue. Like any other policy of the President, it must be conducted in full compliance with all relevant laws. The People`s Republic of China and Taiwan had their first quasi-official discussions and signed their first agreements since 1949. The Taiwan Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and Taiwan`s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) met in Singapore and agreed to institutionalize contacts. Wang Daohan, President of ARATS, and Koo Chen-fu, President of the SEF, agreed that the discussions were not political, but non-governmental, economic, practical and functional. Hu Jintao and Lien Chan made a joint statement to the press to summarize their agreement on the objectives: (1) resumption of negotiations on the strait on the basis of the “1992 consensus”. (2) the cessation of hostilities, the conclusion of a peace agreement and the launch of trusted military measures (CBM); (3) a comprehensive extension of economic engagement; (4) negotiations on Taiwan`s international participation, including WHO; (5) Creating a party platform at a party.