Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "一个中国" in Chinese language version.
Furthermore, what is acknowledged is Beijing's 'position' that Taiwan is a province of China. Thus, a valid interpretation of the wording used is that Australia neither accepts Beijing's position that Taiwan is a province of China nor recognizes that Taiwan is a province of China.
The other question that needs answering is whether India specifically articulated or affirmed a “One China” policy when it transferred diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1949? During the negotiations with the PRC for opening diplomatic relations, India agreed not to have official relations with the ROC or support Taiwan’s membership in the UN as the representative of China.135 There was no mention, however, of a One China policy by either party in the formal communications exchanged between Nehru136and Zhou Enlai137 at the time of India’s recognition of the PRC. It is also a matter of fact that when relations were normalized following then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in December 1988 (or the return visit of then premier Li Peng in December 1991), the joint press communique made no reference to One China. The first reference to “One China” is contained in the ChinaIndia Joint Declaration of November 30, 1996, during Chinese president Jiang Zemin’s state visit to India.138 The intention may have been to reassure the PRC that India’s decision to open a nonofficial office in Taipei in 1995 did not mean a change in policy. Yet after a decade (during which similar references were made at least four more times in bilateral joint statements), the practice of referring to One China was discontinued by India in 2009 on the grounds that China was not willing to show concern for Indian sensitivities on issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity.139 The current government has explicitly stated in 2014 (through then external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj) that “for India to agree to a one-China policy, China should reaffirm a one-India policy.”140 This policy of making no official reference to One China is consistent with the original position and intent of the Government of India, namely that India’s transfer of recognition to the PRC in 1949 does not require any further explanation. Therefore, in the future, India should not make any reference to a One China policy in statements and communiques, whether joint or solo.
The terms of our Joint Communiqué dictate the fundamental basis of Australia’s one China policy – the Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government. Dealings between Australian government officials and Taiwan, therefore, take place unofficially. For example, Australia’s representative office in Taiwan does not have diplomatic status nor do Taiwan’s representative offices in Australia, which have the title “Taipei Economic and Cultural Office” (TECO).
In the Chinese text, the word for “acknowledge” is “cheng ren” (recognize), a change from “ren shi” (acknowledge),used in the 1972 Shanghai Communique. During debate on the TRA in February 1979, Senator Jacob Javits noted the difference and said that “it is very important that we not subscribe to [the Chinese position on one China] either way.” Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher responded that “we regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” (Wolff and Simon, pp. 310-311).
Australian officials argued at the time: [The] formula is in our view closer to the Canadian than the british. “Acknowledges” is very similar to “takes note”
1941年12月9日，中国政府发布对日宣战布告，宣告“所有一切条约、协定、合同，有涉及中日间之关系者，一律废止”，并宣布将收回台湾、澎湖列岛。1943年12月1日，中美英三国政府发表《开罗宣言》宣布，三国之宗旨在使日本所窃取于中国之领土，例如东北、台湾、澎湖列岛等，归还中国。1945年7月26日，中美英三国共同签署、后来苏联参加的《波茨坦公告》，重申“开罗宣言之条件必将实施”。同年9月，日本签署《日本投降条款》，承诺“忠诚履行波茨坦公告各项规定之义务”。10月25日，中国政府宣告“恢复对台湾行使主权”，并在台北举行“中国战区台湾省受降仪式”。由此，通过一系列具有国际法律效力的文件，中国从法律和事实上收复了台湾。1949年10月1日，中华人民共和国中央人民政府宣告成立，取代中华民国政府成为代表全中国的唯一合法政府。这是在中国这一国际法主体没有发生变化情况下的政权更替，中国的主权和固有领土疆域没有改变，中华人民共和国政府理所当然地完全享有和行使中国的主权，其中包括对台湾的主权。由于中国内战延续和外部势力干涉，海峡两岸陷入长期政治对立的特殊状态，但中国的主权和领土从未分割也决不允许分割，台湾是中国领土的一部分的地位从未改变也决不允许改变。
Consistent with its One China policy, Canada maintains unofficial but valuable economic, cultural and people-to-people ties with Taiwan.
金田勝年指出，根據日本戶籍法第106條，日本國民不能有雙重國籍，要提供國籍放棄的證明文件，不過日本政府並不承認台灣是一個正式的國家，所以沒辦法受理台灣政府開出的證明文件。
俄罗斯重申在台湾问题上的一贯原则立场，即承认中华人民共和国政府是中国唯一的合法政府，台湾是中国领土不可分割的一部分。俄罗斯联邦不支持任何形式的"台湾独立"、支持中华人民共和国关于不接受"两个中国"、"一中一台"的立场，反对台湾加入联合国及其它只能由主权国家参加的国际组织，不向台湾出售武器。
「兩位領導人討論了許多話題。在習近平主席的要求下，川普總統同意繼續履行我們（美國）的一個中國政策，」白宮在週四深夜發佈的一份聲明中表示。文中還稱這次談話「格外親切友好」，兩位領導「都邀請對方來自己國家會面」。
日本法務大臣金田勝年昨（14）日召開記者會，表示日本並不承認台灣是一個國家，所以沒辦法受理蓮舫的國籍放棄之證明文件。金田勝年指出，根據日本戶籍法日本國民不得擁有雙重國籍，必須提供國籍放棄的證明文件，但日本並不承認台灣當局的合法性，所以無法受理由台灣政府所開出的證明文件。
The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points: # The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. # The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. # U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; # U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and # U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service.
The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points: # The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. # The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. # U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; # U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and # U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service.
President Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping for the first time since taking over the White House late Thursday, agreeing to honor America's long-standing "One China" policy.
Australian officials argued at the time: [The] formula is in our view closer to the Canadian than the british. “Acknowledges” is very similar to “takes note”
The terms of our Joint Communiqué dictate the fundamental basis of Australia’s one China policy – the Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government. Dealings between Australian government officials and Taiwan, therefore, take place unofficially. For example, Australia’s representative office in Taiwan does not have diplomatic status nor do Taiwan’s representative offices in Australia, which have the title “Taipei Economic and Cultural Office” (TECO).
Furthermore, what is acknowledged is Beijing's 'position' that Taiwan is a province of China. Thus, a valid interpretation of the wording used is that Australia neither accepts Beijing's position that Taiwan is a province of China nor recognizes that Taiwan is a province of China.
The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points: # The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. # The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. # U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; # U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and # U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service.
In the Chinese text, the word for “acknowledge” is “cheng ren” (recognize), a change from “ren shi” (acknowledge),used in the 1972 Shanghai Communique. During debate on the TRA in February 1979, Senator Jacob Javits noted the difference and said that “it is very important that we not subscribe to [the Chinese position on one China] either way.” Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher responded that “we regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” (Wolff and Simon, pp. 310-311).
The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points: # The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. # The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. # U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; # U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and # U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service.
The two leaders discussed numerous topics and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our "one China" policy.
「兩位領導人討論了許多話題。在習近平主席的要求下，川普總統同意繼續履行我們（美國）的一個中國政策，」白宮在週四深夜發佈的一份聲明中表示。文中還稱這次談話「格外親切友好」，兩位領導「都邀請對方來自己國家會面」。
Consistent with its One China policy, Canada maintains unofficial but valuable economic, cultural and people-to-people ties with Taiwan.
日本法務大臣金田勝年昨（14）日召開記者會，表示日本並不承認台灣是一個國家，所以沒辦法受理蓮舫的國籍放棄之證明文件。金田勝年指出，根據日本戶籍法日本國民不得擁有雙重國籍，必須提供國籍放棄的證明文件，但日本並不承認台灣當局的合法性，所以無法受理由台灣政府所開出的證明文件。
金田勝年指出，根據日本戶籍法第106條，日本國民不能有雙重國籍，要提供國籍放棄的證明文件，不過日本政府並不承認台灣是一個正式的國家，所以沒辦法受理台灣政府開出的證明文件。
The other question that needs answering is whether India specifically articulated or affirmed a “One China” policy when it transferred diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1949? During the negotiations with the PRC for opening diplomatic relations, India agreed not to have official relations with the ROC or support Taiwan’s membership in the UN as the representative of China.135 There was no mention, however, of a One China policy by either party in the formal communications exchanged between Nehru136and Zhou Enlai137 at the time of India’s recognition of the PRC. It is also a matter of fact that when relations were normalized following then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in December 1988 (or the return visit of then premier Li Peng in December 1991), the joint press communique made no reference to One China. The first reference to “One China” is contained in the ChinaIndia Joint Declaration of November 30, 1996, during Chinese president Jiang Zemin’s state visit to India.138 The intention may have been to reassure the PRC that India’s decision to open a nonofficial office in Taipei in 1995 did not mean a change in policy. Yet after a decade (during which similar references were made at least four more times in bilateral joint statements), the practice of referring to One China was discontinued by India in 2009 on the grounds that China was not willing to show concern for Indian sensitivities on issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity.139 The current government has explicitly stated in 2014 (through then external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj) that “for India to agree to a one-China policy, China should reaffirm a one-India policy.”140 This policy of making no official reference to One China is consistent with the original position and intent of the Government of India, namely that India’s transfer of recognition to the PRC in 1949 does not require any further explanation. Therefore, in the future, India should not make any reference to a One China policy in statements and communiques, whether joint or solo.
The two leaders discussed numerous topics and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our "one China" policy.
