Luce with wife Clare Boothe Luce, a famous playwright and politician (1954)

Henry Robinson Luce (April 3, 1898 – February 28, 1967), a magazine publisher, was called "the most influential private citizen in the America of his day."^[1] He launched and closely supervised a stable of magazines that transformed journalism and the reading habits of upscale Americans. Time summarized and interpreted the week's news; Life was a picture magazine of politics, culture and society that dominated American visual perceptions in the era before television; Fortune explored in depth the economy and the world of business, introducing to executives avant-garde ideas such as Keynesianism; and Sports Illustrated which probed beneath the surface of the game to explore the motivations and strategies of the teams and key players. Add in his radio projects and newsreels, and Luce created the first multimedia corporation. Luce, born in China to missionary parents, demonstrated a missionary zeal to make the nation worthy of dominating the world in what he called the "American Century."

Life and career[link]

Luce, known to his friends as "Father Time," was born in Tengchow, China, on April 3, 1898, the son of Elizabeth Middleton and Henry Winters Luce, who was a Presbyterian missionary. He received his education in various Chinese and English boarding schools including the China Inland Mission Chefoo School. He was sent to the U.S. at the age of 15 to attend the Hotchkiss School in Connecticut, followed by Yale College.

Luce edited the Hotchkiss Literary Monthly. In 1920, he graduated from Yale College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi and Skull and Bones. At Hotchkiss, he first met Briton Hadden, who would become a lifelong partner. At the time, Hadden served as editor-in-chief of the school newspaper. Luce worked as an assistant managing editor. The two continued to work together at Yale, with Hadden as chairman and Luce as managing editor of The Yale Daily News.

Luce, recalling his relationship with Hadden, said, "Somehow, despite the greatest differences in temperaments and even in interests, we had to work together. We were an organization. At the center of our lives — our job, our function — at that point everything we had belonged to each other."

After being voted "most brilliant" of his class at Yale, he parted ways with Hadden to embark for a year on historical studies at Oxford University. During this time he worked as a cub reporter for the Chicago Daily News. In December 1921, Luce rejoined Hadden to work at The Baltimore News.

Magazines[link]

Nightly discussions of the concept of a news magazine led the two, both age 23, to quit their jobs in 1922. Later that same year the two formed Time Inc. Having raised $86,000 of a $100,000 goal, the first issue of Time was published on March 3, 1923. Luce served as business manager while Hadden was editor-in-chief. Luce and Hadden annually alternated year-to-year the titles of president and secretary-treasurer. Upon Hadden's sudden death in 1929, Luce assumed Hadden's position.

Luce launched the business magazine Fortune in February 1930 and created/founded the pictorial Life magazine in 1934, and launched House & Home in 1952 and Sports Illustrated in 1954. He also produced The March of Time weekly newsreel. By the mid 1960s, Time Inc. was the largest and most prestigious magazine publisher in the world. (Dwight Macdonald, a staffer Fortune during the 1930s, referred to him as "Il Luce", a play on the Italian Dictator Mussolini, who was called "Il Duce").)

During his life, Luce supported many philanthropies such as Save the Children Federation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and United Service to China, Inc.

Luce, who remained editor-in-chief of all his publications until 1964, maintained a position as an influential member of the Republican Party.^[2] Holding anti-communist sentiments, used Time to support right-wing dictatorships in the name of fighting communism. An instrumental figure behind the so-called "China Lobby", he played a large role in steering American foreign policy and popular sentiment in favor of Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek and his wife Soong Mei-ling in their war against the Japanese. (The Chiangs appeared in the cover of Time eleven times between 1927 and 1955.^[3])

It has been reported that Luce, during the 1960s tried LSD and reported that he had talked to God under its influence.^[4]

Once ambitious to become Secretary of State in a Republican administration, Luce penned a famous article in Life magazine in 1941, called "The American Century", which defined the role of American foreign policy for the remainder of the 20th century (and perhaps beyond).^[2]

Luce Memorial Chapel, Tunghai University, Taiwan.

Luce had two children — Peter Paul and Henry Luce III — with his first wife, Lila Hotz. He married his second wife, Clare Boothe Luce in 1935, who had an 11-year-old daughter whom he raised as his own. He died in Phoenix, Arizona in 1967. At his death he was said to be worth $100 million in Time Inc. stock. Most of his fortune went to the Henry Luce Foundation. He is interred at Mepkin Plantation in South Carolina.

He was honored by the United States Postal Service with a 32¢ Great Americans series (1980–2000) postage stamp. Mr. Luce was inducted into the Junior Achievement U.S. Business Hall of Fame in 1977.

According to the Henry Luce Foundation, Henry Luce III died suddenly on September 8, 2005 at 80 years old while visiting his home on Fishers Island, New York, of cardiac arrest. Designed by I. M. Pei, the Luce Memorial Chapel on the campus of Tunghai University in Taiwan was constructed in memoriam of Henry Luce's father.

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Brinkley, Alan. The Publisher: Henry Luce and His American Century, Alfred A. Knopf (2010) 531 p. "A Magazine Master Builder" Book review by Janet Maslin, The New York Times, April 19, 2010 (p. C1 of the NY ed. April 20, 2010). Retrieved 2010-04-20
• Brinkley, Alan. What Would Henry Luce Make of the Digital Age?, TIME (April 19, 2010) excerpt and text search
• Baughman, James L. Henry R. Luce and the Rise of the American News Media (2001) excerpt and text search
• Elson, Robert T. Time Inc: The Intimate History of a Publishing Enterprise, 1923-1941 (1968); vol. 2: The World of Time Inc.: The Intimate History, 1941-1960 (1973), official corporate history
• Herzstein, Robert E. Henry R. Luce, Time, and the American Crusade in Asia (2006) excerpt and text search
• Herzstein, Robert E. Henry R. Luce: A Political Portrait of the Man Who Created the American Century (1994).
• Morris, Sylvia Jukes. Rage for Fame: The Ascent of Clare Boothe Luce (1997)

External links[link]

• TIME biography
• The Henry Luce Foundation
• Whitman, Alden. "Henry R. Luce, Creator of Time–Life Magazine Empire, Dies in Phoenix at 68", The New York Times, March 1, 1967.
• PBS American Masters
• Henry Luce at Find a Grave
• Henry Luce at NNDB

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2012)

"The Man" is a slang phrase that may refer to the government or to some other authority in a position of power. In addition to this derogatory connotation, it may also serve as a term of respect and praise.

The phrase "the Man is keeping me down" is commonly used to describe oppression. The phrase "stick it to the Man" encourages resistance to authority, and essentially means "fight back" or "resist", either openly or via sabotage.^[1]

History[link]

The earliest recorded use^{[citation needed]} of the term "the Man" in the American sense dates back to a letter written by a young Alexander Hamilton in September 1772, when he was 15. In a letter to his father James Hamilton, published in the Royal Dutch-American Gazette, he described the response of the Dutch governor of St. Croix to a hurricane that raked that island on August 31, 1772. "Our General has issued several very salutary and humane regulations and both in his publick and private measures, has shewn himself the Man." ^{[2][dubious – discuss]} In the Southern U.S. states, the phrase came to be applied to any man or any group in a position of authority, or to authority in the abstract. From about the 1950s the phrase was also an underworld code word for police, the warden of a prison or other law enforcement or penal authorities.

It was also used as a term for a drug dealer in the 1950s and 1960s and can be seen in such media as Curtis Mayfield's "No Thing On Me", William Burroughs's novel Naked Lunch, and in the Velvet Underground song "I'm Waiting for the Man", in which Lou Reed sings about going to Uptown Manhattan, specifically Lexington Avenue and 125th Street, to buy heroin.

The use of this term was expanded to counterculture groups and their battles against authority, such as the Yippies, which, according to a May 19, 1969 article in U.S. News and World Report, had the "avowed aim ... to destroy 'The Man', their term for the present system of government". The term eventually found its way into humorous usage, such as in a December 1979 motorcycle ad from the magazine Easyriders which featured the tagline, "California residents: Add 6% sales tax for The Man."

In present day, the phrase has been popularized in commercials and cinema, featuring particularly prominently as a recurring motif in the 2003 film School of Rock.^[3][4][5][6]

Use as praise[link]

The term has also been used as an approbation or form of praise. This may refer to the recipient's status as the leader or authority within a particular context, or it might be assumed to be a shortened form of a phrase like "He is the man (who is in charge)." One example of this usage dates to 1879 when Otto von Bismarck commented, referring to Benjamin Disraeli's pre-eminent position at the Congress of Berlin, "The old Jew, he is the man."^{[7][dubious – discuss]}

In more modern usage, it can be a superlative compliment ("you da man!") indicating that the subject is currently standing out amongst his peers even though they have no special designation or rank, such as a basketball player who is performing better than the other players on the court. It can also be used as a genuine compliment with an implied, slightly exaggerated or sarcastic tone, usually indicating that the person has indeed impressed the speaker but by doing something relatively trivial.

See also[link]

• Absentee landlord
• Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
• New World Order (conspiracy theory)
• Ruling class
• The Establishment
• Power elite
• Corrections officer
• YTMND

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Lighter, J.E. (Ed.). (1997). Random House Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Random House.

Pascal Boyer is a French anthropologist, and Henry Luce Professor of Individual and Collective Memory at Washington University in St. Louis.^[1][2][3] He is a Guggenheim Fellow.^[4]

Work[link]

He advocates the idea that human instincts provide us with the basis for an intuitive theory of mind that guides our social relations, morality, and predilections toward religious beliefs. Boyer and others propose that these innate mental systems make human beings predisposed to certain cultural elements such as belief in supernatural beings.

Boyer has conducted long term ethnographic fieldwork in Africa, where he studied the transmission of oral epics, and has held teaching and research positions at several universities.

Books[link]

• Tradition as Truth and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. ISBN 978-0-521-37417-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=C7cu0joBSM8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=pascal+boyer&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1994. ISBN 978-0-520-07559-7. http://books.google.com/books?id=5jkhjMvYpa4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=pascal+boyer&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
• Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (2002) Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00696-5.
  • Translated into Greek as Και ο Άνθρωπος Έπλασε τους Θεούς, by Dimitris Xygalatas and Nikolas Roubekas (ISBN 9789602882252).
  • Translated into Polish as "I człowiek stworzył bogów... Jak powstała religia?" (ISBN 8373379851).

See also[link]

• Evolutionary origin of religions
• Evolutionary epistemology
• Evolutionary psychology
• Faith and rationality
• Relationship between religion and science
• Cognitive science of religion
• Evolutionary psychology of religion

Notes and references[link]

External links[link]

• "Why Is Religion Natural?", Sceptical Inquirer, Volume 28.2, March/April 2004
• Book review: Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer

This article about an anthropologist is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

The One-China policy (simplified Chinese: 一个中国政策; traditional Chinese: 一個中國政策 ; pinyin: yī gè Zhōngguó zhèngcè) refers to the policy or view that there is only one state called "China", despite the existence of two governments that claim to be "China". As a policy, this means that countries seeking diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC) must break official relations with the Republic of China (ROC), and vice versa. Hence, all the countries recognizing the ROC recognize it as the sole legitimate representative of all of China, and not just the island of Taiwan and other islands which it controls.^[1] Similarly, all states that recognise the PRC either recognise the PRC as the legitimate representative of Taiwan or acknowledge the PRC's views on the matter—the latter is the position adopted by the United States, which prefers to leave that question ambiguous.^[2]

The One China policy is also different from the "One China" principle (一個中國原則/"一个中国"原則), which is the principle that insists both Taiwan and mainland China are inalienable parts of a single "China".^[3] A modified form of the "One China" principle known as the 1992 Consensus is the current policy of both the PRC and ROC governments. Under this consensus, both governments agree that there is only one sovereign state encompassing both mainland China and Taiwan, but disagree about which of the two governments is the legitimate government of this state.

The One-China principle faces opposition from the movement for Taiwan independence, which pushes to establish Republic of Taiwan and cultivate a separate identity apart from China called Taiwanization. Taiwanization's influence on the government of the ROC has caused instability: after the Communist Party of China expelled the ROC in the Chinese Civil War from most of Chinese territory in 1949 and founded the PRC, the ROC's Chinese Nationalist government, which still held Taiwan, continued to claim legitimacy as the government of all of China. Under former President Lee Teng-hui, Additional Articles were appended to the ROC constitution in 1991 so that it applied effectively only to the Taiwan Area prior to national unification.^[4] However, current ROC President Ma Ying-jeou has re-asserted claims on mainland China as recently as October 8, 2008.^[5]

History[link]

Territory controlled by the People's Republic of China (purple) and the Republic of China (orange). The size of minor islands have been exaggerated in this map for ease of identification.

Before the early 17th century Taiwan was inhabited by aborigines and Han Chinese migrants resulting from successive waves of migration in antiquity. Taiwan was first brought under the control of Zheng Chenggong, a Ming-loyalist, in 1662, before being incorporated by the Qing Dynasty in 1683.

It was also briefly ruled by Dutch (1624–1662) and the Spanish (1626–1642, Northern Taiwan only). The Japanese ruled Taiwan for half a century (1895–1945), while France briefly held sway over Northern Taiwan in 1884-85.^[6]

It was an outlying prefecture of Fujian Province under the Manchu Qing government of China from 1683 until 1887, when it was officially made a separate province. Taiwan remained a province for 8 years until it was ceded to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895.^[7][8]

Following the Oct. 1945 Japanese surrender ceremonies in Taipei, the Republic of China, under the Kuomintang (KMT) became the governing polity on Taiwan during the period of military occupation.^{[9][10][11][12]} In 1949, after losing control of mainland China following the Chinese civil war, and before the post-war peace treaties had come into effect, the ROC government under the KMT withdrew to occupied Taiwan (which was still Japanese territory), thus becoming a government in exile,^{[13][14][15][16]} and Chiang Kai-shek declared martial law. Japan formally renounced all territorial rights to Taiwan in 1952 in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but neither in that treaty nor in the peace treaty signed between Japan and China was the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan awarded to the Republic of China.^[17] This government still governs Taiwan but transformed into a democracy in the 1990s following decades of martial law. During this period, the legal and political status of Taiwan has become more controversial, with the expression of Taiwan independence sentiments in Taiwan which were formerly outlawed.

Viewpoints within Taiwan[link]

Within Taiwan, there is a distinction between the positions of the Kuomintang (KMT) : the Kuomintang also believes in the "One China Principle" and maintains its claim that under the ROC Constitution (passed by the Kuomintang government in 1947 in Nanjing) the ROC has sovereignty over most of China (including by their interpretation both mainland China and Taiwan) and, according to some interpretations of that constitution, Mongolia.

The Democratic Progressive Party does not agree with the "One China principle" as defined by the KMT or Two Chinas. Instead, it has a different interpretation of this principle and believes "China" only refers to People's Republic of China and states that Taiwan and China are two separate countries, therefore there is One Country on Each Side and "one China, one Taiwan". The DPP's position is that the people of Taiwan have the right to self-determination without outside coercion ^[18]

Legal positions[link]

Neither the ROC nor the PRC government recognizes the other as a legitimate national government. The legal position in each jurisdiction is as follows.

People's Republic of China (PRC)[link]

• Preamble of the Constitution:

"Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China. It is the lofty duty of the entire Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland."^[19]

• Anti-Secession Law:

Article 2:

There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included.

Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means.^[20]

Article 5:

Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country.

To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.

After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.^[20]

Republic of China (ROC)[link]

• Article 4 of the Constitution:

"The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." (Effective 1948 to 2000.)

• Article 4 of the 6th Additional Articles of the Constitution:

"The territory of the Republic of China, defined by its existing national boundaries, shall not be altered unless initiated upon the proposal of one-fourth of all members of the Legislative Yuan, passed by three-fourths of the members of the Legislative Yuan present at a meeting requiring a quorum of three-fourths of all the members, and approved by three-fourths of the delegates to the National Assembly present at a meeting requiring a quorum of two-thirds of all the delegates." (Effective 2000 to 2005)

• Article 4 of the 7th Additional Articles of the Constitution:

"The territory of the Republic of China, defined by its existing national boundaries, shall not be altered unless initiated upon the proposal of one-fourth of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, passed by at least three-fourths of the members present at a meeting attended by at least three-fourths of the total members of the Legislative Yuan, and sanctioned by electors in the free area of the Republic of China at a referendum held upon expiration of a six-month period of public announcement of the proposal, wherein the number of valid votes in favor exceeds one-half of the total number of electors." (Effective 2005 to present)

In accordance with this legal position, legislation passed by the Legislative Yuan is signed by the President of the ROC. Only voters residing in the free area are eligible to vote and be elected in ROC elections. The ROC's constitution still raises claims of sovereignty over Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau – territories that today constitute the PRC – but, according to some interpretations, also over Mongolia, Tuva (Russia), and other, minor areas which today are part of Afghanistan, Myanmar, India and Japan.^{[citation needed]}

Evolution of the policy[link]

One interpretation, which was adopted during the Cold War, is that either the PRC or the ROC is the sole rightful government of all China and that the other government is illegitimate. While much of the western bloc maintained relations with the ROC until the 1970s under this policy, much of the eastern bloc maintained relations with the PRC. While the government of the ROC considered itself the remaining holdout of the legitimate government of a country overrun by what it thought of as Communist rebels, the PRC claimed to have succeeded the ROC in the Chinese Civil War. Though the ROC no longer portrays itself as the sole legitimate government of China, the position of the PRC remained unchanged until the early 2000s, when the PRC began to soften its position on this issue to promote Chinese reunification.

The revised position of the PRC was made clear in the Anti-Secession Law of 2005, which although stating that there is one China whose sovereignty is indivisible, does not explicitly identify this China with the PRC. (Almost all PRC laws have a suffix (prefix in Chinese grammar) "of the People's Republic of China" in their official names, but the Anti-Secession Law is an exception.) Beijing has made no major statements after 2004 which identify one China with the PRC and has shifted its definition of one China slightly to encompass a concept called the '1992 Consensus': both sides of the Taiwan strait recognise there is only one China — both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China, but agree to differ on the definition of that one China.

One interpretation of one China is that there exist only three^{[clarification needed]} geographical regions of China, which were split between two Chinese governments by the Chinese Civil War. This is largely the position of current supporters of Chinese reunification in Mainland China who believe that this "one China" should eventually reunite under a single government. Starting in 2005, this position has become close enough to the positions of the PRC to allow for high-level dialogue between the Communist Party of China and the Pan-Blue Coalition of the ROC.

Policy position in the PRC[link]

In practice, official sources and state-controlled media never refer to the "ROC government", and seldom to the "government of Taiwan". Instead, the government in Taiwan is referred to as the "Taiwan authorities". The PRC does not accept or stamp Republic of China passports. Instead, a Taiwan resident visiting Mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau must use a Taiwan Compatriot Entry Permit.^{[citation needed]}

Policy position in the ROC[link]

The only official statement of the ROC on its interpretation of the One-China Principle dates back to 1 August 1992. At that time, the National Unification Council of the ROC expressed the ROC's interpretation of the principle as:^[21]

1. The two sides of the Strait have different opinions as to the meaning of "one China." To Beijing, "one China" means "the People's Republic of China (PRC)," with Taiwan to become a "Special Administrative Region" after unification. Taipei, on the other hand, considers "one China" to mean the Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1912 and with de jure sovereignty over all of China. The ROC, however, currently has jurisdiction only over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Taiwan is part of China, and the Chinese mainland is part of China as well.
2. Since 1949, China has been temporarily divided, and each side of the Taiwan Strait is administered by a separate political entity. This is an objective reality that no proposal for China's unification can overlook.
3. In February 1991, the government of the Republic of China, resolutely seeking to establish consensus and start the process of unification, adopted the "Guidelines for National Unification". This was done to enhance the progress and well-being of the people, and the prosperity of the nation. The ROC government sincerely hopes that the mainland authorities will adopt a pragmatic attitude, set aside prejudices, and cooperate in contributing its wisdom and energies toward the building of a free, democratic and prosperous China.

However, political consensus and public opinion in Taiwan has evolved since 1992. There is significant difference between each faction's recognition for and understanding of the One China principle. The Pan-Blue Coalition parties, consisting of the Kuomintang, the People's First Party, and the New Party, accept the One China principle. In particular, the current President of the Republic of China, Ma Ying-Jeou, stated in 2006 when he was the Kuomintang chairman that "One China is the Republic of China". Until the 1990s, the government actively stated that the ROC is the only legitimate "One China" while the PRC is illegitimate.

The Pan-Green Coalition parties, consisting of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union, are more hostile to the policy, as they view Taiwan as a country separate from China. The former ROC President, Chen Shui-bian of the DPP, regards acceptance of the "One China" principle as capitulation to the PRC, and prefers to view it as nothing more than a topic for discussion, in opposition to the PRC's insistence that the "One China" principle is a prerequisite for any negotiation.

When the Republic of China established diplomatic relations with Kiribati in 2003 the ROC officially declared that Kiribati could continue to have diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Despite the declaration, however, all countries maintaining official ties with Taipei continue to recognize the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China.^[1]

In accordance with the One China principle, the ROC does not recognize or stamp PRC passports. Instead, mainland Chinese residents visiting Taiwan and other territory under ROC jurisdiction must use a mainland China resident pass issued by the ROC authorities.

One-China policy and diplomatic relations[link]

The One-China Principle is also a requirement for any political entity to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. The PRC has traditionally attempted to get nations to recognize that "the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China... and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China." However, many nations are unwilling to make this particular statement and there was often a protracted effort to find language regarding one China that is acceptable to both sides. Some countries use terms like "acknowledge", "understand", "take note of", while others explicitly use the term "support" or "recognize" for Beijing's position on the status of Taiwan.

The name "Chinese Taipei" is used in some international arenas since "Taiwan" suggests that Taiwan is a separate country and "Republic of China" suggests that there are two Chinas, and thus both violate the One-China Principle. Taiwan could also be used as shorthand for the Customs Union between Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. For example, in Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Declaration on the March 2007 elections, issued on behalf of the European Union and with support of 37 countries, express mention is made of "Taiwan."

Most countries that recognize Beijing circumvent the diplomatic language by establishing "Trade Offices" that represent their interests on Taiwanese soil, while the ROC government represents its interests abroad with TECRO, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. The United States (and any other nation having diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China) does not have formal diplomatic relations with the ROC. Instead, external relations are handled via nominally private organizations such as the American Institute in Taiwan or the Canadian Trade Office in Taipei.

In the case of the United States, the One-China Policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position." The United States has not expressed an explicitly immutable statement regarding whether it believes Taiwan is independent or not. Instead, Washington simply states that they understand the PRC's claims on Taiwan as its own. In fact, many scholars agree that US One-China Policy was not intended to please the PRC government, but as a way for Washington to conduct international relations in the region, which Beijing fails to state.

When President Jimmy Carter in 1979 broke off relations with the ROC in order to establish relations with the PRC, Congress responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act that maintained relations, but stopped short of full recognition of the ROC. In 1982 President Ronald Reagan also saw that the Six Assurances were adopted, the fifth being that the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Still, United States policy has remained ambiguous. In the House International Relations Committee on April 21 of 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James A. Kelly, was asked by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) whether America’s commitment to Taiwan’s democracy conflicted with the so-called One-China Policy. He admitted the difficulty of defining the U.S.'s position: "I didn’t really define it, and I’m not sure I very easily could define it." He added, "I can tell you what it is not. It is not the One-China principle that Beijing suggests." [1]

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:

1. The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982.
2. The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
3. US policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;
4. US policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and
5. US policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined.

In an interview with Chinese students on November 16, 2009, President Barack Obama reconfirmed that the United States supports the One China Policy.^[22]

For any country that wants to establish a diplomatic relationship with the PRC, it must first discontinue any formal relationship with the ROC by the request of the PRC government.^{[citation needed]} In order to compete for other countries' recognition, each Chinese government has given money to a certain few small countries. Both the PRC and ROC governments have accused each other of monetary diplomacy. Several small African and Caribbean countries have established and discontinued diplomatic relationships with both sides several times in exchange for huge financial support from each side.^{[citation needed]}

Of the 192 members of the United Nations, only Bhutan has chosen to recognize neither the People's Republic of China nor the Republic of China. All remaining governments have recognized one or the other, recognizing that government as the sole legitimate government of all China.^{[citation needed]}

One-China policy and cross-strait relations[link]

The acknowledgment of the One China Principle is also a prerequisite by the People's Republic of China government for any cross-strait dialogue be held with groups from Taiwan. The PRC's One-China policy rejects formulas which call for "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" ^[23] and has stated that efforts to divide the sovereignty of China could be met with military force.

The PRC has explicitly stated that it is flexible about the meaning "one China," and that "one China" may not necessarily be synonymous with the PRC, and has offered to talk with parties on Taiwan and the government on Taiwan on the basis of the Consensus of 1992 which states that there is one China, but that there are different interpretations of that one China. For example, in Premier Zhu Rongji's statements prior to the 2000 Presidential Election in Taiwan, he stated that as long as any ruling power in Taiwan accepts the One China Principle, they can negotiate and discuss anything freely. However, the One-China Principle would apparently require that Taiwan formally give up any possibility of Taiwan independence, and would preclude any "one nation, two states" formula similar to ones used in German Ostpolitik or in Korean reunification. Chen Shui-bian, president of the Republic of China between 2000 and 2008 repeatedly rejected the demands to accept the One China Principle and instead called for talks to discuss One China itself. With the January and March 2008 elections in Taiwan, and the election of Ma Ying-jeou as the President of the ROC, who was inaugurated on May 20, a new era of better relations between both sides of the Taiwan Strait was established.^[24] KMT officials visited Mainland China, and the Chinese ARATS met in Beijing with its Taiwanese counterpart, the Straits Exchange Foundation. Direct charter flights were therefore established.

One China was the formulation held by the ROC government before the 1990s, but it was asserted that the one China was the Republic of China rather than PRC. However, in 1991, President Lee Teng-hui indicated that he would not challenge the Communist authorities to rule mainland China. This is a significant point in the history of Cross Straits relations in that a president no longer claims administrative authority over mainland China. Henceforth, Taiwan independence movement gained a political boost, and under Lee's administration the issue is no longer who rules mainland China, but who claims legitimacy over Taiwan and the surrounding islands. Over the course of the 1990s, President Lee appeared to drift away from the One-China formulation, leading many to believe that he was actually sympathetic to Taiwan independence. In 1999, Lee proposed a Special state-to-state relations for mainland China-Taiwan relations which was received angrily by Beijing, which ended semi-official dialogue until June 2008, when ARATS and SEF met, and in which President Ma Ying-jeou reiterated the 1992 Consensus and the different interpretation on "One China".

After the election of Chen Shui-bian in 2000, the policy of the ROC government was to propose negotiations without preconditions. While Chen did not explicitly reject Lee's two states theory, he did not explicitly endorse it either. Throughout 2001, there were unsuccessful attempts to find an acceptable formula for both sides, such as agreeing to "abide by the 1992 consensus." Chen, after assuming the Democratic Progressive Party chairmanship in July 2002, moved to a somewhat less ambiguous policy, and stated in early August 2002 that "it is clear that both sides of the straits are separate countries." This statement was strongly criticized by opposition Pan-Blue Coalition parties on Taiwan, which support a One-China Principle, but oppose defining this "One China" as the PRC.

The One China policy became an issue during the 2004 ROC Presidential election. Chen Shui-bian abandoned his earlier ambiguity and publicly rejected the One-China Principle claiming it would imply that Taiwan is part of the PRC. His opponent Lien Chan publicly supported a policy of "one China, different interpretations," as done in 1992. At the end of the 2004 election, Lien Chan and his running mate, James Soong, later announced that they would not put ultimate unification as the goal for their cross-strait policy and would not exclude the possibility of an independent Taiwan in the future. In an interview with Time Asia bureau prior to the 2004 presidential elections, Chen used the model of Germany and the European Union as examples of how countries may come together, and the Soviet Union as illustrating how a country may fragment.

In March 2005, the PRC passed an Anti-Secession Law which authorized the use of force to prevent a "serious incident" that breaks the One China policy, but which at the same time did not identify one China with the People's Republic and offered to pursue political solutions. At the same session of the PRC Congress, a large increase in military spending was also passed, leading blue team members to interpret those measures as forcing the ROC to adhere to the One China Policy or else the PRC would attack.

In April and May 2005, Lien Chan and James Soong made separate trips to Mainland China,^[25] during which both explicitly supported the Consensus of 1992 and the concept of one China and in which both explicitly stated their parties' opposition to Taiwan independence. Although President Chen at one point supported the trips of Lien and Soong for defusing cross-strait tensions^[26]., he also attacked them for working with the "enemy" PRC^{[citation needed]}. On April 28, 2008, Honorary Chairman Lien Chan of the then opposition Kuomintang visited Beijing and met with Hu Jintao for the fourth time since their historic encounter on April 29, 2005 in their respective capacity as party leaders of both the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT. Lien also met Chen Yunlin, director of the PRC's Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council.^[27]

On May 28, 2008, Kuomintang Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung made a landmark visit to Beijing^[28]., and met and shook hands with the Communist General Secretary Hu Jintao, at the Great Hall of the People. He also visited the mausoleum of Sun Yat-Sen. Hu Jintao called for resuming exchanges and talks, based on the 1992 Consensus, between mainland China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and Taiwan's Strait Exchange Foundation, as early as possible, and practically solving problems concerning the two sides through talks on equal footing. Once the ARATS-SEF dialogue is resumed, priority should be given to issues including cross-Strait weekend chartered flights and approval for mainland China residents traveling to Taiwan, which are of the biggest concern to people on both sides of the Strait. "The KMT has won two important elections in Taiwan recently," Wu said, "which showed that the mainstream opinion of the Taiwan people identified with what the KMT stood for, and most of the Taiwan people agree that the two sides on the strait can achieve peaceful development and a win-win situation.".^[29] Wu also told reporters that he had stressed to Hu that Taiwan needed an international presence. "The Taiwanese people need a sense of security, respect and a place in the international community," Wu said. Hu was also quoted as having promised to discuss feasible measures for Taiwan to take part in international activities, particularly its participation in World Health Organization activities.^[30]

See also[link]

• Chinese political parties
• Chinese reunification
• Cross-Strait relations
• Desinicization
• Exclusive Mandate
• Legal status of Taiwan
• Political status of Taiwan
• Politics of the People's Republic of China
• Politics of the Republic of China

References[link]

External links[link]

• US-PRC Joint Communique, August 17, 1982
• Washington Post's Interview with Taiwan's Leader, March 13, 2006
• America and Taiwan, 1943-2004

Links to related articles v t e Cross-Strait relations Participants People's Republic of China Republic of China Organisations Taiwan Affairs Office Mainland Affairs Council Straits Exchange Foundation Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Kuomintang Communist Party of China National Unification Council Cross-Straits Economic Trade and Culture Forum People Hu Jintao Ma Ying-jeou Chen Yunlin Chiang Pin-kung Jiang Zemin Chen Shui-bien Wang Daohan Koo Chen-fu Lee Teng-hui Lai Shin-Yuan Wang Yi Events Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) Retrocession of Taiwan (1945) 228 Incident (1947) Chinese Civil War (1946–1950) First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954–1955) Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958) PRC entry to the United Nations (1971) Wang-Koo summit (1993) Third Taiwan Strait Crisis (1995–1996) Overseas Chinese World Conference (2000-current) Anti-Secession Law (2005) Pan-Blue visits to mainland China (2005) Cross-strait charter (2005-2008) Chen-Chiang summit (2008-current) Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (2010) Concepts Political status of Taiwan Legal status of Taiwan Chinese reunification Taiwan independence 1992 Consensus Three Links One China policy Two Chinas One Country on Each Side Three Noes Six Assurances Special state-to-state relations Four Noes and One Without Zhonghua Minzu Special non-state-to-state relations Cross-strait Economic Zone v t e Politics of the People's Republic of China Constitution of the People's Republic of China Parties Parties Communist Party Central Committee General Secretary Central Politburo Politburo Standing Committee Central Secretariat Discipline Inspection Commission State organs National People's Congress Standing Committee Chairman President Vice President State Council Premier Vice Premier Central Military Commission Chairman People's Liberation Army People's Political Consultative Conference National Committee Chairman Politics of province-level divisions Municipalities Beijing Chongqing Shanghai Tianjin Provinces Anhui Fujian Gansu Guangdong Guizhou Hainan Hebei Heilongjiang Henan Hubei Hunan Jiangsu Jiangxi Jilin Liaoning Qinghai Shaanxi Shandong Shanxi Sichuan Yunnan Zhejiang Autonomous regions Guangxi Inner Mongolia Ningxia Xinjiang Tibet SARs Hong Kong Macau See also Elections v t e Politics of the Republic of China Doctrines Constitution Three Principles of the People Five Races Under One Union Government Branches Executive Premier · Vice Premier Legislative Speaker Legislators Judicial Control Examination Defunct: National Assembly Leadership President current Vice President current Parties Pan-Blue Kuomintang People First Party New Party Pan-Green Democratic Progressive Party Taiwan Solidarity Union Others Non-Partisan Solidarity Union Elections Presidential 1948 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 Legislative 1948 1969 1972 1975 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2008 2012 National Assembly 1991 1996 2005 Cross-Strait One-China policy 1992 Consensus Special state-to-state relations One Country on Each Side Taiwan consensus Foreign affairs United Nations Chinese Taipei India Japan South Korea Mongolia Paraguay Singapore United States Venezuela Other topics Status Political Legal Issues Taiwan independence / Taiwanization Chinese reunification / Chinese nationalism v t e Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China   Africa Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Côte d'Ivoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe   Asia Afghanistan Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Burma Cambodia China, Republic of (Taiwan) East Timor Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Nepal Oman Pakistan Palestine Philippines Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen   Europe Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom Vatican City   North America Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Canada Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States   Oceania Australia Fiji Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu   South America Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela   Multilateral Africa Arab League BRICS Caribbean European Union Latin America Oceania   Diplomacy Ministry of Foreign Affairs Minister of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic missions of the People's Republic of China Diplomatic missions in the People's Republic of China China and the United Nations v t e Foreign relations of the Republic of China Americas Belize Dominican Republic Paraguay United States Taiwan Relations Act Venezuela Africa Gambia South Africa Asia PRC-ROC relations (Cross-Strait relations) India Japan Mongolia South Korea Vietnam Europe Denmark Holy See (Vatican City) Netherlands Russia Spain Other United Nations Relations with Pacific countries Political/Legal status Related topics Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic missions of/in the Republic of China Visa policy Timeline of diplomatic relations

Michael Kinsley (born March 9, 1951) is an American political journalist, commentator, television host, and pundit. Primarily active in print media as both a writer and editor, he also became known to television audiences as a co-host on Crossfire. Kinsley has been a notable participant in the mainstream media's development of online content.

Personal life[link]

Kinsley was born in Detroit, Michigan. He attended the Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, then graduated from Harvard College in 1972. At Harvard, Kinsley served as vice president of the University's daily newspaper, The Harvard Crimson. He was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and studied at Magdalen College, Oxford, then returned to Harvard for law school. While still a third-year law student, he began working at The New Republic and was allowed to finish his Harvard Juris Doctor degree via courses at the evening program at The George Washington University Law School.

Kinsley's first exposure to a national television audience was as moderator of William Buckley's Firing Line. In 1979 Kinsley became editor of The New Republic and wrote that magazine's TRB column for most of the 1980s and 1990s. That column was also reprinted in a variety of newspaper op-ed pages, including the Washington Post, and made Kinsley's reputation as a leading political commentator. Kinsley also served as editor at Harper's (for a year and a half in the early 1980s), managing editor of Washington Monthly (in the mid-1970s, while still in school), and American Editor of The Economist (a short-term, honorary position).

In 2002 Kinsley married Patty Stonesifer, previously married with adult children. Stonesifer is a frequent television commentator who was responsible for the former Microsoft news portion of the MSNBC merger (including Slate Magazine, where Kinsley served as an editor.) Stonesifer served as chief executive officer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for eleven years, and is now a senior advisor.^[1]

In 2002 Kinsley announced that he had Parkinson's disease. He is an atheist.^[2]

[edit] Crossfire and Slate

In 1989, Kinsley agreed to take a position on CNN's Crossfire, co-hosting with conservative Pat Buchanan. Representing the liberal or left-wing position in the televised political debates, Kinsley combined a dry wit with nerdy demeanour and analytical skills.

Kinsley appeared in three movies during those years: Rising Sun (1993), Dave (1993), and The Birdcage (1996).

For a fateful weekend, he was considered for the position of editor-in-chief of The New Yorker. The magazine was eventually handed to David Remnick.

After leaving Crossfire in 1995, Kinsley returned to his editorial roots, relocating to Seattle and taking a position with Microsoft as the founding editor of its online journal Slate. In 1999 he was named "Editor of the Year" by the Columbia Journalism Review for his work at that magazine. Kinsley stepped down from Slate in 2002, shortly after disclosing that he had Parkinson's disease.

Subsequent Positions[link]

This section is outdated. Please update this section to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010)

Kinsley next moved to the Los Angeles Times as the Editorial Page Editor in April 2004. Kinsley maintained his Seattle residence and often worked from there, commuting to Los Angeles on a part-time basis. During his tenure, Kinsley tried to overhaul the paper's editorial page and led an abortive experiment with a Wikitorial, while also receiving criticism from USC professor and feminist advocate Susan Estrich, alleging the lack of editorials written by women. Kinsley announced his departure in September 2005 after a falling out with the publisher.^[3] He returned to writing a weekly column which appeared in The Washington Post and Slate, and in 2006 he served briefly as American editor of The Guardian. He later became a regular columnist for Time magazine.

On July 12, 2006 Kinsley underwent a form of surgery known as deep brain stimulation, to treat his Parkinson's Disease. Initial reports suggest that the operation was a success. According to a joke reference in Time, Kinsley's first words out of the operating room were, "Well, of course, when you cut taxes, government revenues go up. Why couldn't I see that before?"^[4]

In May 2009 Kinsley revealed in a story reviewing a new issue of Newsweek in The New Republic that he had been fired by Time.^[5]

On September 9, 2010, Kinsley, along with MSNBC pundit Joe Scarborough, joined the staff of Politico as the publication's first opinion columnists.

On April 29, 2011, Bloomberg L.P. announced that Kinsley has joined the Bloomberg View editorial board.

Quotes[link]

"A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say." — this definition became known as a Kinsley gaffe.^[6]

"I have a saying: the scandal isn't what's illegal, the scandal is what's legal." — from Crossfire, CNN, Nov. 15, 1990.

"[A]mbition can never be naked in a political campaign, it must be clothed in deceit." — Time, Jan. 4, 2008

See also[link]

Biography portal

• List of newspaper columnists

References[link]

• Please Don't Remain Calm: Provocations and Commentaries (W. W. Norton, 2008)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/07/080407fa_fact_kinsley

Further reading[link]

• "Mine Is Longer Than Yours". New Yorker Magazine. April 7, 2008.
• Book: Please Don't Remain Calm: Provocations and Commentaries" (W. W. Norton, 2008)

External links[link]

• Michael Kinsley at the Internet Movie Database
• Kinsley's website, such as it is.
• Archive of Kinsley work at Time magazine
• Video interview/discussion with Kinsley and Robert Wright on Bloggingheads.tv
• Booknotes interview with Kinsley on Big Babies, January 21, 1996.