Is the "Second Republic" a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"

Is the "Second Republic" a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 23, 2007

Comment: The Chen regime's so-called "Draft Constitution for a Second Republic of China" was written with the intention of taking yet another step toward Taiwan independence. While it may succeed in weakening the Taiwan region's identification with the government of the Republic of China, Its defective language may unwittingly strengthen the hold the People's Republic of China government on the Chinese mainland has over the island. In short, from a Taiwan independence True Believer's perspective, "out of the frying pan, and into the fire."

Is the "Second Republic" a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 23, 2007

Chen Shui-bian touts the concept of a "Second Republic of China" as one which "unyielding defends principles, but does not sacrifice practicality," and Ku Kuan-min echoed his sentiments. A few days later, a "Draft Constitution for a Second Republic of China" emerged, and the public watched as this constitutional revisionist trial balloon took to the air.

Astonishingly, the very first sentence of the "Draft Constitution of the Second Republic" contains a mistake. The first sentence of the preamble states that "The Republic of China was established in 1911," when in fact the Republic of China was established in 1912. This passes as a minor mistake in the draft constitution. The major mistakes are both more numerous and more egregious.

The most questionable section of the preamble is this passage: "The establishment of any form of political relations between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China must first undergo peaceful and equitable negotiations, then be submitted to a popular referendum."

This provision links the "Republic of China" and the "People's Republic of China," and in addition stipulates that "the establishment of any form of political relations" between the two sides must first "undergo negotiations, then be subjected to a popular referendum." But why should the Constitution of the Republic of China be required to include stipulations concerning links with the People's Republic of China? What kind of constitution stipulates that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China "must negotiate" and establish "political relations?" Furthermore, how is the Republic of China going to hold a public referendum that "must be negotiated" with the People's Republic of China?

Does this not amount to awarding the People's Republic of China, by means of the Constitution of the Republic of China, the "power to participate, negotiate, and even decide" the future of Taiwan?

This "Draft Constitution for the Second Republic" will in fact do everything possible to sever any connection with the previous Republic of China (The First Republic). Who would have expected that the future of the Taiwan region would be so closely linked with the People's Republic of China in such a constitution? This constitution inverts the nonessential and the essential, cause and effect, and antagonist and protagonist. This constitution endeavors by its design to sever links, yet unexpectedly winds up creating links. Is that not both foolish and absurd?

The intention of the author was presumably to smuggle into the preamble a legal pretext for the "Two States Theory" and the holding of a "Taiwan Independence Referendum." But because of fears that this would enrage the Chinese Communist Party and the United States, this could not be stated too clearly. Hence the need for the "equitable negotiations" proviso, and the "unified popular referendum" option. But by doing this, what was originally a "two sides, divided rule" constitution. has by means of a "Second Republic," become a "negotiated future" constitution. The former language, "The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation," has ironically become "a linked entity whose future must be negotiated with the People's Republic of China."

We are not suggesting that the two sides cannot or ought not "negotiate," but "negotiations" can proceed only on practical matters affecting both sides of the Taiwan Strait, in pace with shifts in the strategic picture. If the explicit language of the constitution uses this kind of language to link the two sides, this is most assuredly not a solution to one's predicament, but rather sticking one's own head into the guillotine. In fact, the past several attempts to "author a new constitution" and to conduct a "popular referendum" resulted in the wiggle room for Taiwan independence getting smaller and smaller. This "Draft Constitution for the Second Republic," assuming it ever materializes, would by means of an explicitly worded constitution, bind the future of the Taiwan region with the People's Republic of China. One really has to wonder what its proponents are thinking.

Especially worrisome is the fact that the Taiwan independence movement still does not dare to dispense with the name, "Republic of China," but can only engage in self-deceit and deceit of others by using the name "Second Republic." But even though they have retained the name "Republic of China" as an amulet to protect themselves, they have been busy eliminating every trace of the Republic of China. They have endeavored to empty the "Republic of China" of every last bit of substance, while retaining the name "Republic of China" for appearance. The final result is predictable. Because the Taiwan independence movement cannot dispense with the name "Republic of China," it will never be able to achieve its final goal. Meanwhile, the "Republic of China" will have been emptied of all substance, leaving a body without a soul. This is not "nation-building," but "nation-destroying." The Taiwan region of China will never become the "Republic of Taiwan," but neither will it remain the last bastion of the "Republic of China." The soul of the nation having been buried, what will remain? The "Constitution of the Second Republic" does not dare to cross the red line of Taiwan independence, therefore it does not dare to do away with the "Republic of China." One can safely predict, based on the myriad problems the draft constitution must address, that it will end up as nothing more than a massive farce, involving self-deception and the deception of others.

The "Draft Constitution for a Second Republic of China" has taken another step toward emptying out the substance of the Republic of China. However not only can it not meet the expectations of the Taiwan independence movement, it has handed the future of the Taiwan region over to the People's Republic of China for "negotiation." Could it really be that the "Draft Constitution of the Second Republic" is in fact a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"

Original Chinese below:

「第二共和」是「賣台憲草」？
聯合報／社論
2007/03/23

陳水扁誇讚「中華民國第二共和」這個概念是「堅守原則，不失務實」；辜寬敏亦加附和。過了沒幾天，《中華民國第二共和憲草》出爐，國人始看到了這顆修憲氣球冉冉升空。

詎料，《第二共和憲草》的第一句話就出錯。前言的第一句話是「中華民國創立於一九一一年」，但史實卻是「中華民國創立於一九一二年」。這只算憲草的小錯，其餘大謬不然者更所在多有。

最受質疑者是前言裡的這一段話：「中華民國與中華人民共和國建立任何形式政治關係，須經對等、和平協商後，交付公民投票。」

此一條款將「中華民國」與「中華人民共和國」加以連結，且規定兩岸「建立任何形式 政治關係」，「須經協商後，（始可）交付公投」。但是，為何中華民國要在憲法中規定與中華人民共和國的此種連結？又何以憲法要規定中華民國「須」與中華人 民共和國「協商」建立「政治關係」？更何以中華民國實施公投，「須經」與中華人民共和國「協商」？

這不啻是透過中華民國憲法，授予了中華人民共和國與台灣未來的「連結權」，更授以對台灣未來的「參與權」、「協商權」，甚至「決定權」。

這一部《第二共和憲草》，其實是想方設法欲將「過去的中華民國（第一共和）」切割棄去；誰知卻竟然在憲法明文中將台灣的未來與「中華人民共和國」作此緊密連結；輕重倒置、本末顛倒、敵我不分，這樣的憲法設計，想要「切割」，竟成「連結」，豈不是非愚即妄？

起草者的立意應是想藉這段前言偷渡「兩國論」，及建立「台獨公投」的法源；卻因怕 觸怒中共及美國，不能明言，所以須有「對等協商」的但書，並亦開放「統一公投」的選項。然而，如此一來，原來這一部「兩岸分治」的憲法，至「第二共和」卻 成了「協商未來」；原來「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，卻成了「必須與中華人民共和國協商未來的連結體」。

此處並非主張兩岸不可「協商」，或不應「協商」；但「協商」只能在兩岸實務中依勢 推移。若在憲法明文中以這類文字來建立兩岸連結，這就絕不是解套，而是將自己的脖子送上刀砧的愚妄行徑。其實，過去多次「制憲」、「公投」的嘗試，皆造成 了台獨空間愈鬧愈小的後果；此次《第二共和憲草》倘若實現，竟以白紙黑字的憲法，明文將台灣的未來與中華人民共和國綁在一起，則是更加匪夷所思了！

尤其令人憂慮的是，台獨運動翻騰至今，仍然不敢甩掉「中華民國」四字，而只能以 「第二共和」來「自欺欺人」；但是，雖然保留了「中華民國」四字作為台獨的護身符，卻又對「去中華民國化」不留餘地，欲將「中華民國」的實質內涵完全掏 空，徒留「中華民國」四個字的皮相而已。最後的結局將是：台獨運動因丟棄不了「中華民國」四字，終難成局；而「中華民國」卻亦已掏空挖盡，有體無魂。這絕 不是「族國建造」（Nation-building），而是「族國毀滅」；台灣不可能成為「台灣共和國」，但也不再是「中華民國」了。國魂既喪，國何以 立？《第二共和憲法》不敢跨越台獨的紅線，因此就不敢完全甩掉「中華民國」，從憲草捉襟見肘的表現已可預言，這又是一場「自欺欺人」的鬧劇罷了！

《中華民國第二共和憲草》進一步掏空挖盡了「中華民國」，然非但不能回應台獨的期待，反而將台灣的未來交給了與中華人民共和國的「協商」之中。《第二共和憲草》難道真是《賣台憲草》？