Ma Ying-jeou: Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China

Ma Ying-jeou: Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 24, 2007

The Kuomintang and the Democratic Progressive Party are engaged in a contest of wills over whether to eliminate the Republic of China.

Ma Ying-jeou and Frank Hsieh have clarified their respective definitions of the nation. Ma Ying-jeou and the Pan Blue camp define the Republic of China as a sovereign and independent nation that has no need to undergo de jure independence. Therefore it opposes the establishment of a new "Nation of Taiwan." Ma Ying-jeou has declared he will maintain the status quo, no reunification, no independence, no war. If elected, Ma will not negotiate with Beijing over the issue of reunification for the duration of his term.

Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party argue that the Republic of China is a not normal country, that it is not even a country. Therefore it is necessary to "rectify names and author a new constitution," eliminating the Republic of China and establishing a new "Nation of Taiwan." This is the essence of the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." They want to "rectify names and author a new constitution." They want to promote Taiwan independence. They want to destroy the Republic of China. When Frank Hsieh visited Japan he said the Democratic Progressive Party expects to win only about 50 seats in the legislature. That is insufficient to amend the constitution. Therefore the "rectification of names" is impossible, and talking about it is nonsense. The Democratic Progressive Party has been making a fuss about "rectifying names and authoring a new constitution" for years. But when has it ever come close to the threshold for amending the constitution?

The Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. Its current name is the Republic of China." The resolution argues that the "Republic of China is a form of Taiwan independence" (de facto Taiwan independence), therefore there is no need to declare Taiwan independence.But the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" that the Democratic Progressive Party passed this year, demands the "prompt rectification of names and authoring of a new constitution." It repudiates the Republic of China. It denies that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It demands the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" (de jure Taiwan independence). Frank Hsieh cannot overrule the "Resolution for a Normal Nation." He cannot prevent himself from being hijacked by the Democratic Progressive Party.

Tsao Hsing-cheng has encouraged the public to consider a "Plebiscite on Reunification" that would clarify the Blue and Green camps' respective positions. Tsao Hsing-cheng's definition of the Republic of China resembles the "Republic of China" referred to in the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." He is willing to accept the Republic of China as de facto Taiwan independence. He does not accept the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" and "de jure Taiwan independence" because that would bring disaster upon the nation. Tsao Hsing-cheng's perspective represents the perspective of some Pan Blues. It is also the Democratic Progressive Party's de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." However Tsao opposes the Democratic Progressive Party's taboo "de jure Taiwan independence" expressed in its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." Ma Ying-jeou's "no reunification, no independence, no war" position says essentially the same thing.

Therefore, in the struggle between Hsieh and Ma, and between Blue and Green over the definition of the nation, a strange anomaly has appeared. The Blue camp seems to be defending the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in the Democratic Progressive Party's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Democratic Progressive Party meanwhile, has abandoned this line of defense in favor of its "Resolution for a Normal Nation." The "Resolution for a Normal Nation" denies that either the "Republic of China" nor "Taiwan" enjoys de facto Taiwan independence. Instead, it demands the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," in order to achieve de jure Taiwan independence.

As a result, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh has been reduced to its simplest and most basic form: Is it necessary to eliminate the Republic of China? Ma advocates maintaining the Republic of China. Hsieh advocates the "prompt rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," arguing that sooner or later it will be necessary to eliminate the Republic of China. He once proposed a "five year timetable for the rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." Now Hsieh says the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution" is impossible. How can he contradict himself so flagrantly?

As we can see, the Blue and Green camps' definition of national identity has clearly evolved. For some in the Blue camp the Republic of China means "no reunification, no independence, no war." Some even advocate the codification of a "Plebiscite on Reunification" in order to "allow Taiwan's future to be decided by 23 million people." In fact this has much in common with the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." Ma Ying-jeou even said that, in the Kuomintang's view "Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China." By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan independence argument repudiates the de facto Taiwan independence expressed in its own "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The Resolution for a Normal Nation" does not merely assert that the "Republic of China is not a sovereign and independent nation." It also asserts that "Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent nation," because it still awaits the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution."

In other words, the debate over national identity between Ma and Hsieh, and between the Blue camp and the Green camp, has unconsciously evolved into a Blue camp "de facto independent Taiwan" (The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation, Taiwan is semantically equivalent to the Republic of China). The Green camp meanwhile, demands "de jure Taiwan independence" (the elimination of the Republic of China, the establishment of a Nation of Taiwan). Under the circumstances, the debate between the Blue and Green camps is not over national identity or Taiwan independence. It is over whether to eliminate the Republic of China. After all, if the Democratic Progressive Party was still arguing that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, its name is the Republic of China," then they would already have an "independent Taiwan." Why bother with "Taiwan independence?" Why demand the elimination of the Republic of China?

This is the question that Frank Hsieh must answer. Since he demands the elimination of the Republic of China, then why is he running for the Republic of China presidency? Why did he declare that he would eliminate the Republic of China within five years? Is this Frank Hsieh's justification for running for the presidency of the Republic of China?

馬英九：台灣在語義上等於中華民國
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.12.24 02:13 am

國民黨與民進黨正在進行一場是否要消滅中華民國的角力。

馬謝二人的國家論述已漸成型。馬英九及泛藍方面的論述是：中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，不必再經「法理台獨」，因此反對另建「台灣國」。馬英九並宣示，維持現狀，不統、不獨、不武；他若當選總統，在任內不會與中共談判統一問題。

謝長廷及民進黨的論述則是：中華民國是一不正常的國家，甚至不是一個國家，因此必須「正名制憲」，以消滅中華民國，另建台灣國。此即《正常國家決議文》所主張的，將繼續不斷地搞「正名制憲」，繼續不斷地搞台獨，繼續不斷地毀滅中華民國。至於謝長廷訪日時稱，民進黨未來立委僅五十席左右，未達修憲門檻，因此不可能「修憲正名」，這卻是胡說；試問，民進黨的「正名制憲」鬧到今日地步，何嘗在立院跨過修憲門檻？

民進黨《台灣前途決議文》指出，「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在的名字叫中華民國」；這是承認「中華民國亦是台獨的一種形式」（實質台獨），因此即不必再宣布「台獨」；但是，至民進黨今年制定《正常國家決議文》，又主張「及早正名制憲」，卻又否定了中華民國，甚至亦否定了「台灣已經是一主權獨立的國家」，所以必須再經「正名制憲」（法理台獨）。謝長廷不能否決《正常國家決議文》，就不能擺脫民進黨的挾持。

曹興誠帶動「統一公投」的討論，使藍綠國家論述的對照更形鮮明。曹興誠似乎直指他的「中華民國」，與民進黨《台灣前途決議文》中所指的「中華民國」頗有交集；他可以接受將「中華民國」視為「實質台獨」，只是不贊同「正名制憲」的「法理台獨」，因為那將為國家帶來災禍。曹興誠的觀點應可代表相當比例的泛藍觀點，也就是認為民進黨應當守住《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」底線，但反對民進黨跨入《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」禁區。馬英九所稱的「不統、不獨、不武」，其實也有這個意味。

於是，在馬謝藍綠國家論述的攻防戰中，出現了奇異的弔詭。藍軍似在全力防守民進黨《台灣前途決議文》「實質台獨」的防線，民進黨卻已棄守此一防線，代之以《正常國家決議文》，否定「中華民國」或「台灣」的「實質台獨」，而認為必須「正名制憲」，以實現「法理台獨」。

這使得馬謝國家論述的辯論，急劇地化約成一個最簡單與最根本的議題：要不要消滅中華民國？馬主張維護中華民國；謝主張「及早正名制憲」，亦即遲早要消滅中華民國，並曾提出「五年後正名制憲」時間表。如今謝又提出「不可能修憲正名」，怎能如此顛三倒四？

有目共睹，藍綠雙方的國家論述已有顯著的演化。就藍營言，中華民國不統、不獨、不武，甚至有人主張將「統一公投」法制化，以落實「台灣前途由二千三百萬人決定」，這其實已與《台灣前途決議文》有重大交集；馬英九甚至說，依國民黨的看法，「台灣在語義上等於中華民國」。相對而言，民進黨的台獨論述，則撕毀了《台灣前途決議文》的「實質台獨」，另採《正常國家決議文》的「法理台獨」，這不但是宣示「中華民國不是主權獨立的國家」，也不啻宣告「台灣亦尚非主權獨立的國家」，因為仍待「正名制憲」。

準此而言，馬謝藍綠的國家論述，竟在不知不覺間，似漸演變成藍主「實質獨台」（中華民國是一主權獨立的國家，台灣在語義上等於中華民國），綠主「法理台獨」（非消滅中華民國不可，亦非另建台灣國不可）的對峙；倘係如此，藍綠的國家論述之辯，其實不是「台獨」與否之辯，而只是一場要不要消滅中華民國的角力。畢竟，如果民進黨仍然承認「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，她的名字叫中華民國」，則「獨台」即可，何必再搞「台獨」？更何必主張非消滅中華民國不可？

這正是謝長廷必須答覆的質疑：既要消滅中華民國，則何必競選中華民國總統？宣示在五年後要消滅中華民國，難道這就是謝長廷競選中華民國總統的正當理由？