The Wu Hu Meeting: Sun Yat-sen and the 1992 Consensus

The Wu Hu Meeting: Sun Yat-sen and the 1992 Consensus
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, China)
A Translation
May 29, 2008

On May 22, the United Daily News published an editorial on KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung's upcoming visit to the mainland. We urged him to deliver a message to CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao, saying: "The two sides of the strait cannot avoid earthquakes, but the two sides of the strait can avoid war."

Yesterday, the Wu Hu Meeting took place. Wu Po-hsiung told Hu Jintao, before live television cameras, before viewers watching in realtime on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, "No one can guarantee that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will not experience natural disasters. But through our joint effort, we can ensure that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will never experience war."

Sichuan earthquake relief efforts motivated authorities on both sides of the strait to value the historic opportunity and to redouble their efforts to communicate. As expected, weekend charter flights, mainland tourists to Taiwan, and other "Four Constants" received Hu Jintao's endorsement. This was essentially Hu Jintao's gift to the Ma Ying-jeou administration. Its significance extended beyond specific policies. It established a foundation for stable and amicable cross-strait relations. It significantly reduced internal and external pressure on the new KMT government regarding its cross-strait policy promises.

Wu and Hu repeatedly underscored the importance of the new cross-strait situation and the importance of the new cross-strait opportunities. We hope cross-strait relations will grow following the Wu Hu Meeting, both at the macro level and at the practical level. At the macro level, the two sides need a common political ideal. We suggest a "Sun Yat-sen Framework." At the practical level, the two sides need a better political framework, one that reflects the way they actually interact. We suggest the "1992 Consensus."

First, the Sun Yat-sen Framework. In 2005, during the Lien Hu Meeting, Hu Jintao told Lien Chan, "The Chinese Communist Party... has long been a staunch supporter of Sun Yat-sen, a collaborator with Sun Yat-sen, and an heir to Sun Yat-sen's tradition. During this visit, when Chen Yunlin greeted Wu Po-hsiung at the Nanjing Airport, Wu quoted Sun's proposal for national unity. The staff of the Sun Yat-sen Tomb noted that the 392 stone steps leading up to the tomb symbolized the "Three People's Principles, the nation's territory, and cooperation between the two parties." Wu Po-hsiung did not pass up an opportunity to present his own views. He mentioned Sun Yat-sen's formulation, "Of the People, by the People, and for the People," and with a brush penned the words, "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da." (the earth is our common heritage, the people above all else."

During the 2005 Lien Hu Meeting, the United Daily News published an editorial noting that cross-strait interaction lacked an overarching framework. Communism could not provide that framework. Afer all, the Communists themselves were engaged in De-Communization. But the two sides respected Sun Yat-sen, therefore a Sun Yat-sen Framework for cross-strait interaction could ensure long term stability.

Regarding the Sun Yat-sen Framework, "The Chinese People" seems to be the buzzword in current discussions of cross-strait relations. Ma Ying-jeou and Wu Poh-hsiung have both stated that "People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese." During yesterday's Wu Hu Meeting, expressions such as "love for one's compatriates," "blood is thicker than water," and "one's own flesh and blood" emerged. The problem is that in addition to "tian xia wei gong" and "the people above all else," a reunified China needs civil rights and economic prosperity. The Taiwan region's second change in ruling parties is considered a significant achievement by many in the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao regions.

Regarding the "Big Tent" Theory, Beijing's "One China" hard sell seems to have been replaced by a "One People" soft sell. Regarding the Sun Yat-sen Framework, Beijing is stressing Chinese nationalism. Taipei is stressing "national unity, civil rights, and economic prosperity" in equal measures. Wu Po-hsiung's couplet "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da" summed up his position.

Wu Po-hsiung's couplet has three implications. First, it is an internal memo to the KMT. That is why he said the KMT must "clean house." Second, it is a message to Beijing. If Beijing wishes to stabilize cross-strait relations, it needs to understand that leaders on Taiwan must honor the concept of "tian xia wei gong, ren min zui da." Beijing must understand it is no easy matter to preserve the Republic of China. Third, Wu Poh-hsiung apparently wanted to encourage Beijing, as a friend. Upholding civil rights and achieving economic prosperity are probably goals Beijing aspires to, but feels it is unable to fulfill as yet. This does not negate the reforms and liberalizations Beijing has implemented over the past 30 years. If one day Beijing can ensure civil rights and economic prosperity on mainland China, then the Divided China problem will be solved. The two sides will most assuredly find a solution. The Sun Yat-sen Framework offers an elevated perspective, one that can provide the overarching superstructure for cross-strait interaction.

Let's review the 1992 Consensus. Between the 2005 Lien Hu Meeting, and the current Wu Hu Meeting, the language of the 1992 Consensus has remained the same. But the substance of the 1992 Consensus remains unfulfilled. After 20 years of ups and downs, Beijing realizes that in order to stabilize cross-strait relations, it must secure the Republic of China. Without a secure Republic of China, there can be no stable cross-strait relations. When Taipei stresses the need to face reality, the reality it refers to is the reality of divided rule. When Beijing stresses that it is setting aside disputes, the disputes have merely being set aside. They have not been resolved.

When Hu Jintao took the initiative to invite Wu Poh-hsiung to visit, he did so on the understanding that Wu Po-hsiung was the Chairman of the ruling party of the Republic of China. But he did not officially refer to the Republic of China. When Wu Po-hsiung stood before the tomb of KMT Founder Sun Yat-sen, he reported that the KMT had regained political power. He referred to Nanjing as the seat of the national government. In his eulogy to Sun, he noted the date as "May 27 of the 97th Year of the Republic." But he never uttered the words "Republic of China." Only when he referred to Sun Yat-sen's date of burial, "June 1 of the 18th Year of the Republic," did he finally utter the words "Republic of China." Wu Po-hsiung's frustration can be imagined. The 1992 Consensus merely shelves disputes. It does not confront reality. The two sides must not limit themselves merely to shelving disputes on the basis of the 1992 Consensus. They must also confront reality. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait could use the former East and West German model, or the current South and North Korean model as their framework for interaction. We believe the results would be more salutory than those for East and West Germany, or those for South and North Korea.

A major earthquake in Sichuan has inspired the public on both sides of the strait to interact in an exemplary manner. They became the theme of yesterday's talks in Beijing, Wu and Hu wound up acting as the peoples' spokesmen. Such an atmosphere is beneficial to cross-strait interaction. It puts the people first. The role of leaders is to accurately reflect the thoughts and feelings of the people.

If we look at cross-strait relations purely on the basis of who is bigger or smaller, the question inevitably becomes "Who will gobble up whom?" But if we look at cross-strait relations on the basis of ideas, then it leads to competition in the pursuit of "national unity, civil rights, and economic prosperity." If we look at the Sun Yat-sen Framework and the 1992 Consensus from this perspective, then the two sides are unlikely to squander this historic opportunity.

吳胡會：孫中山的啟示與九二共識的詮釋
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.05.29 03:00 am

五月二十二日，本報社論曾請即將往訪大陸的國民黨主席吳伯雄帶給中共總書記胡錦濤一句話：「兩岸不會沒有地震，但可以沒有戰爭！」

昨天，吳胡會登場，吳伯雄面對胡錦濤，在兩岸電視直播的致詞中帶到了這一句話。他說：「兩岸之間，誰也不能保證沒有自然災害；但可以透過共同的努力，來保證兩岸永遠沒有戰爭。」

四川震災使得兩岸當局所相互強調的「歷史機遇」更添動力。果如預料，周末包機、大陸觀光客來台等「四個繼續」皆獲胡錦濤背書。這形同是胡錦濤致送馬英九政府的就任禮物，其意義尚不僅是幾項政策個案如周末包機能如期實現，更是對兩岸關係的友善穩定下錨定樁，使國民黨新政府在兩岸的領域中大幅減低了內外壓力。

然而，在吳胡二人一再強調的兩岸「新形勢」、「新契機」中，我們更希望此次吳胡會後的兩岸關係，能夠在「宏觀願景」及「現實基礎」上皆有所長進。就宏觀願景言，是指兩岸應當發展出一個共同的政治理念追求，我們想談的是「孫中山架構」；就現實基礎言，是指兩岸應當有一更能反映現實的互動架構，我們想談的是「九二共識」。

先談「孫中山架構」。二○○五年「連胡會」，胡錦濤曾當著連戰說：「中國共產黨人……從來就是中山先生的堅定支持者、合作者、繼承者。」此次吳伯雄往訪，陳雲林在首站南京接機，亦當場引述了孫中山「民族大團結」的主張；連中山陵的接待人員也說，三九二級石階，寓有「三民主義、九州方圓、兩黨合作」之義。吳伯雄當然也未錯過借題發揮的機會，標舉「民有、民治、民享」的理念，並當場揮毫題了八個大字：「天下為公、人民最大。」

二○○五年連胡會時，本報社論即指出，兩岸互動交流中缺少一個「巨型架構」；因為，共產主義不能成為此一架構，連中共當局也在「去共產主義化」；而既然兩岸皆推崇孫中山，則倘若兩岸能以「孫中山架構」為兩岸互動的「巨型架構」，應可期諸久遠。

就「孫中山架構」言，「民族」似為當前兩岸對話中最突出的話題，馬英九及吳伯雄皆已道出「兩岸同屬中華民族」；昨日吳胡會，「同胞之愛」、「骨肉之情」、「血肉相連」，亦是聲聲入耳；但問題在於「民權」與「民生」，亦即在於「天下為公」及「人民最大」。此次台灣實現「二次政黨輪替」，被許多大陸及港澳人民視為華人世界的民主成就，亦緣於此。

從「屋頂理論」來看北京當局現今的兩岸操作，「一個中國」的「硬屋頂」似已漸漸退至第二線，「中華民族」的「軟屋頂」則站上了第一線。倘以孫中山架構來說，北京當局強調的是「民族主義」；但台北方面則希望能將「民族／民權／民生」均衡體現，吳伯雄的八個字「天下為公／人民最大」，透露了心曲。

吳伯雄的這八個大字，也許可從三方面來看。一方面是自我惕厲，因此他說國民黨必須「好自為之」；再一方面是傳話北京當局，若欲穩定兩岸關係，不能不知台灣的主政者有「天下為公／人民最大」的責任，亦不能不知「中華民國」這個架構之維持非易。最後，吳伯雄似亦有以諍友地位與北京當局互勉之意；「民權／民生」應非中共當局所不願為或所不想為，而是形格勢禁做不到，然亦不能據此否定中共在改革開放三十年來已經實現的成績；倘若中共有朝一日能將中國的民權與民生成就至一定程度，則中國問題即可解決，兩岸問題亦必會找到出路。倘能站在此一高度看「孫中山架構」，當然可以作為兩岸互動的「巨型架構」。

再談九二共識。自二○○五年「連胡會」，至此次「吳胡會」，「九二共識」的政策標誌已趨穩固；但是，「九二共識」的內涵「一中各表」，卻仍待體現。經歷過去二十年來的跌宕曲折，北京當局應知，欲穩固兩岸關係，即必須穩固「中華民國」；無穩固的「中華民國」，即無穩固的兩岸關係。然而，就此以論，台北方面強調的是「正視現實」，亦即「正視」兩岸分治的「現實」；但北京當局強調的卻是「擱置爭議」，只是「擱置」而已，「爭議」仍在。

胡錦濤主動邀請吳伯雄往訪，當然是承認了吳伯雄「中華民國執政黨主席」的身分，卻未同等表現出「正視」中華民國的「現實」。於是，吳伯雄此行在言詞之間，雖向國民黨總理孫中山報告「重新取回政權」，又稱南京曾是「國民政府所在地」，再在祭文標出「維民國九十七年五月二十七日」，卻始終說不出一個「中華民國」；一直到引據孫中山下葬日為「中華民國十八年六月一日」，才說出「中華民國」四個字。吳伯雄心中的壓抑可想而知，而「九二共識」只是「擱置爭議」卻未「正視現實」，亦是有目共睹。寄望兩岸當局，未來在「九二共識」的基礎上，不能只是「擱置爭議」，也應有更多「正視現實」的表現。海峽兩岸，其實可用類如過去東西德、如今南北韓的模式來建立互動架構，相信必有東西德、南北韓所難及的較佳表現。

一場四川大地震，以乎使得「兩岸人民」的相互感應成了昨日北京會談的主題，吳胡二人反而成了人民的代言人。這樣的氛圍，有益於兩岸的互動；將人民擺在首位，主政者的角色則是準確反映人民的思維情感。

兩岸關係若以大小論，不免變成「誰吃掉誰」的問題；但若以理念論，則在於「民族／民權／民生」的競爭與追求。倘若能以這個高度來看「孫中山架構」與「九二共識」，兩岸始不致錯失當前彌足珍貴的「歷史機遇」。