Lee Teng-hui's "Two States" have become "Two Friends"

Lee Teng-hui's "Two States" have become "Two Friends"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 30, 2009

Lee Teng-hui met with James Soong at Tsui Shan Chuang for two and a half hours. He then announced his latest cross-Strait policy perspectives at a meeting of Taiwan Advocates. He said he had "no objection to deepening exchanges between Taiwan and China." He said "Three links, four links, five links are all okay." He said "You are you, I am me, but you and I are friends."

Lee Teng-hui's two moves reveal an attempt to make up for two major blunders he once committed. Internally, Lee Teng-hui's biggest mistake was to purge James Soong, making a Lien/Soong ticket impossible, and causing the KMT to lose power. It also denied Lee Teng-hui a place in history. He was instead relegated to the status of Godfather of Taiwan Independence. Today, Lee and Soong met in secret. Lee Teng-hui probably regrets the decisions he made back then. In terms of cross-Strait relations, Lee Teng-hui's "National Unification Guidelines" was a failure. His "Special Two-States Theory" was a failure. His Taiwan independence path he adopted after stepping down was a failure. He even went so far as to said "I am not an advocate of Taiwan independence. I have never advocated Taiwan independence." Such examples show that on cross-Strait policy, Lee Teng-hui is a chicken without a head. He has now advanced a new cross-Strait theory. He probably hopes to find a new place for himself in the annals of history.

Lee Teng-hui's new cross-Strait theory, has in effect, radically deconstructed his past cross-Strait theory. Lee Teng-hui has finally acknowledged the rise of Mainland China. He no longer talks about the "Coming Collapse of China." He has finally endorsed the Three Links. He no longer talks about his "No Haste, Be Patient" policy. He no longer stresses his "Two States Theory." He now says "You are you, I am me, but you and I are friends." In fact, such views were forseeable 20 years ago. Lee Teng-hui was in power for twelve years. He has been out of power for nine years. Today, after running around like a chicken with its head cut off for the past 20 years, Lee Teng-hui is finally mouthing words such as these. What is this, if not the very thing Lee himself decried so often and so long? What is this, if not "Taiwan's Sorrow?"

But were it not for Lee Teng-hui's major debacle, we might not have our current domestic political and economic consensus and cross-Strait relations. Lee Teng-hui's squelching of the Lien/Soong ticket brought down the KMT, enabling Chen Shui-bian to seize power with only 39.3% of the vote. But the biggest paradox of all is that an ethnic separatist Taiwan independence political path turned out to be unacceptable not merely to Beijing, but also to mainstream society on Taiwan. In other words, without Lee Teng-hui's "No Haste, Be Patient" policy, and Chen Shui-bian's "Rectification of Names and Authoring of a New Constitution," leading Taiwan toward a political and economic impasse, would mainstream society on Taiwan ever have experienced today's awakening?

At the same time, between Beijing and Taipei, we have a thought-provoking paradox. After enduring the thunder and lightning of Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, the Beijing government arrived at a newer and clearer understanding of the Republic of China's political institutions and public mood. This gradually changed its Taiwan policy from one of propaganda attacks and military intimidation, to Hu Jintao's "framework for the peaceful development of cross-strait relations." In retrospect, without Lee Teng-hui bringing down the KMT, how could Lien Chan have made his "ice-breaking journey" and established a KMT/CCP platform? Without Chen Shui-bian's "Rectification of Names and Authoring of a New Constitution," and "Plebiscite to Join the UN," would Beijing have been willing to affirm the "92 consensus" advance cross-Strait relations to where they are today? Perhaps if the Lien/Soong ticket had prolonged KMT rule, Lee Teng-hui might still be the power behind the throne. Perhaps the public on Taiwan might still be deadlocked over the issue of reunification vs. independence. Perhaps Beijing's policy of propaganda attacks and military intimidation might still be the same. And so on, and so forth. Is this not the ultimate paradox?

Lee Teng-hui now speaks of "cross-Strait friends." But he has yet to resolve the problems he created with his "Two States Theory." Lee Teng-hui has yet to explain what our national identity ought to be during cross-Strait negotiations. Today Lee Teng-hui says "You are you, I am me, but you and I are friends." He no longer advocates Taiwan independence or "Taiwan and China / One Country on Each Side." Why doesn't Lee Teng-hui repudiate, here and now, his past allegation that the "Republic of China no longer exists?" Why not reaffirm the Republic of China, and on its basis establish cross-Strait relations? Why not desist from criticizing the Ma administration, accusing it of falsifying the meaning of the "92 Consensus?" Why not affirm the "One China, Different Expression" consensus reached by the public on Taiwan? It would be one thing if "One China, Different Expressions" had not been publicly endorsed by Beijing. But to defend the Republic of China is something Taipei must do and can do.

Lee Teng-hui has repudiated almost every one of his past positions on Taiwan independence. But if he refuses to reaffirm the "Republic of China," what will his new cross-Strait theory be based upon? He once advocated Taiwan independence, therefore he repudiated the Republic of China. Now that he has revised his position on Taiwan independence, isn't it time he reaffirmed the Republic of China? Is his sole reason for forsaking Taiwan independence to make friends with Beijing? Will refusing to endorse the Republic of China and "One China, Different Expressions" really prevent Taiwan from becoming what Lee Teng-hui referred to as a "pawn nation?" Will it really prevent Taiwan from being manipulated by Beijing?

Lee Teng-hui's soul searching reflects the plight of the Taiwan independence movement. The DPP's "Consensus Conference on Development Strategy" wants only to debate the Ma administration about ECFA. It is terrified of debating the Ma administration on its Mainland policy. Is this not pathetic? It this not ridiculous?

李登輝的「兩國論」變成「兩岸朋友論」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.06.30 05:30 am

李登輝在翠山莊密會宋楚瑜兩個半小時，接著又在群策會上宣示他最新的兩岸政策觀點：「不反對台灣與中國深化交流」、「三通、四通、五通都不要緊」，以及「你是你，我是我，但你我是朋友」。

李登輝的這兩個動作，顯示正試圖對他過去所犯的兩大錯誤進行修正補綴。對內而言，李登輝最大的錯誤是整肅宋楚瑜，使連宋配破局，終致國民黨喪失政權，也因而使李登輝自己失去歷史落點，淪落為台獨教父；如今，李宋密會，李登輝自不免會有何必當初的感慨。對兩岸而言，李登輝早期的「國家統一綱領」路線失敗、後期的「特殊兩國論」失敗，卸任後的台獨路線亦告失敗，他甚至說，「我不是台獨，從來沒有主張過台獨」；凡此種種，皆顯示李登輝在兩岸政策上根本是一隻無頭蒼蠅。現在，他又提出了兩岸關係新論，毋寧是想為自己在歷史評價上找尋一個立錐之地。

李登輝的兩岸新論，不啻將他過去的兩岸舊論徹底解構。李登輝終於承認了中國的崛起，不再談「中國崩潰論」；終於贊同三通，不再談「戒急用忍」；也不再強調「兩國論」，而稱「你是你，我是我，你我是朋友」……。這些觀點，其實在二十年前即可預知預見，但如今竟是出自主政十二年、卸任九年如無頭蒼蠅般地嗡嗡亂飛了二十幾年的李登輝口中，這豈不正是台灣人的悲哀？

不過，如果不是李登輝的大失敗，國內政經共識與兩岸關係恐怕也不可能出現如今的新境界。李登輝否定了「連宋配」，拖垮了國民黨，使陳水扁以三十九‧三％的選票取得政權；但弔詭的是，因此在最後也藉以驗證了分裂族群的台獨路線非但是北京所不能接受，亦且也是台灣主流社會所不能接受。亦即，若非李登輝的「戒急用忍」與陳水扁的「正名制憲」，將台灣政經情勢逼入絕境，台灣的主流社會豈會有今日之覺醒？

與此同時，在兩岸之間也出現了一個耐人尋味的弔詭。北京政府在經歷李登輝與陳水扁的雷電風雨之後，對台灣的民主機制與民意內涵顯然亦有新的領悟；其對台政策因而漸由文攻武嚇，轉變至今日胡錦濤主持的「兩岸關係和平發展框架」。回想起來，若無李登輝拖垮國民黨，豈會出現連戰的「破冰之旅」及國共平台？若無陳水扁的「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」，北京又豈有可能以一個各說各話的「九二共識」將兩岸關係推進至今日境地？或許，當年倘若以「連宋配」延續了國民黨政權，而仍由李登輝垂簾聽政，今天台灣的統獨僵局恐怕仍然打不開，北京的文攻武嚇也仍然改變不了。如此這般，豈非弔詭？

然而，李登輝的「兩岸朋友論」，仍舊未能解決「兩國論」的問題。李登輝仍未交代清楚的是：台灣究竟應以如何的國家認同來面對兩岸關係？如今，李登輝試圖以「你是你，我是我，你我是朋友」的說法，來替代「台灣中國／一邊一國」的台獨論述；但李登輝何不就此否定自己曾經說過的「中華民國已不存在了」，重新回到「中華民國」的地位上來建立他的兩岸新論。亦即，不要只是批評「九二共識」為馬政府所假造，而何不也贊同以「一中各表」為台灣全民的共識與底線？「一中各表」尚未被北京公開接受是一回事，但中華民國堅持此義卻是台灣自己可為及應為之事。

李登輝幾乎否定了他過去主張的所有的台獨相關論述，但若不回到「中華民國」的立場，請問這套兩岸新論如何立足？過去是因主張台獨而否定中華民國，如今修正了台獨難道也不回歸中華民國？難道放棄了台獨，只與北京作「朋友」，而不主張中華民國及一中各表，就能如李登輝所說不使台灣成為「棋子國家」，不受中國擺弄？

李登輝的反省，其實反映了獨派的困境。但民進黨的「發展策略共識會議」，卻只想與馬政府辯論ＥＣＦＡ，而完全不敢面對中國政策的黨內大辯論。豈不可悲？豈不可笑？