Cross-Strait Relations: The Cup and the Roof

Cross-Strait Relations: The Cup and the Roof
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 20, 2009

In cross-Strait relations, peace has replaced war. Now the basis for interaction is "First economics, then politics. First the urgent, then the gradual. First the easy, then the difficult." Politics has been lumped with "the later, the gradual, and the difficult," but sooner or later we will have to face these problems and deal with them. It may be too early to solve them, but it is not too early to think about them.
As we have pointed out, cross-Strait relations cannot actually be divided into discrete realms labeled "political" and "economic." Major economic interactions invariably have major political implications. For example, the establishment of Direct Links or ECFA are not merely economic events, but also major political events. The two sides still have high-level political issues that must be addressed.

We would like to set forth two theories: the Cup Theory, and the Roof Theory. First, the Cup Theory. The Republic of China is the Cup. Taiwan is part of the water in the cup. Beijing has long wanted the water, but not the Cup. As one can imagine, attempting to take the water without the Cup, can only precipitate a bloody war. It is impossible. If one resorts to force, and breaks the Cup, one will merely wind up with a puddle of water.

From an historical perspective, the Republic of China is a Cup. It established a republic during the Xinhai Revolution. It waged the Northern Expedition, fought the Sino-Japanese War, and recovered Taiwan. The reality is that today's Taiwan is contained within the Republic of China Cup. The Republic of China is a democratic entity whose borough chiefs and president are directly elected. In other words, the "Republic of China" Cup is the crystalization of both Chinese principles and democratic practices. Neither the Chinese Communist Party nor Taiwan independence elements may break this Cup. Anyone who does, will merely wind up with a puddle of water.

Beijing's recent "liberation of thought" deserves affirmation. It has gone from "The Republic of China has already been destroyed" to "One China is the One China referred to in Taiwan's laws," to "Although China has yet to be reunified, it remains One China." It has in effect tacitly acknowledged the position held by the Republic of China. As for the "Rejection of de jure Taiwan independence" and "Maintenance of the status quo," these affirm that "The Republic of China political framework is not Taiwan independence."

Beijing clearly realizes that without the Cup known as the "Republic of China," there is no water. Without this Cup called the Republic of China, Taiwan will be ten thousand times more difficult to deal with than Tibet and Xinjiang. Therefore, we can imagine a time and a place when "The Cup and the water are one" becomes the key to cross-Strait relations.

The next step is the "Roof Theory." Will cross-Strait relations lead to the establishment of some sort of political affiliation? That may be too early to say. One can imagine all sorts of political affiliations. But any affiliation should be based on something that transcends both the "Republic of China" and the "People's Republic of China." It should be based on a "Third Concept" or "Higher Concept." In recent years, Beijing no longer refers to One China as the PRC. It says instead that "The mainland and Taiwan are both part of China." Such arguments smack of the 1992 Consensus, whose subtext is "One China, Different Interpretations." As we can see, such arguments are gradually subsuming "One China" under a "Third Concept" framework.

If "One China" is a "Third Concept," then the two sides may be able to consider a cross-Strait political affiliation based on the "Roof Theory." There are two possibilities. One. Form a confederation. Affiliate the two sides politically under the Basic Law of the confederation or federation. Two. Sign a peace agreement. Have they peace agreement's provisions "maintain the status quo." These two ways of thinking may still be in the developmental stages. But they may also constitute eventual solutions.

Some on either side of the Taiwan Strait will consider such views out-dated or whimsical. But if one wishes to shatter the Cup, how will one deal with leftover water? If one wishes to retain the water, how can one shatter the Cup?

The Cup Theory may grate on some people's ears. But in fact it is nothing more than the policy currently maintained by authorities on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Beijing wants the Cup to preserve the water. Taipei wants the water to preserve the Cup. Taipei wants to use Taiwan's democratic institutions to preserve the Republic of China. The reason is simple. Only "peaceful development" will allow cross-Strait relations to be resolved gradually. Since peace is the main theme, neither Beijing nor Taipei may shatter the Cup.

The Cup Theory and the Roof Theory are in fact two sides of the same coin. The Cup Theory ensures peaceful development. The Roof Theory is a way of establishing some sort of political affiliation. The future may or may not hold a Roof Theory. But evidence shows that the Cup Theory is the key to the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. Of that there is no doubt.

兩岸關係：杯子理論與屋頂理論
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.20 03:59 am

兩岸關係「以和平取代戰爭」的大勢應當已告確立；現在的互動準則是「先經後政／先急後緩／先易後難」。但是，「政治」雖被置於「後／緩／難」的部位，卻是遲早必須面對及處理的問題。如今雖非處理的時機，但不妨預作思考。

我們曾指出，兩岸關係不可能將「政」與「經」分割成兩個截然區隔的領域；因為，在重大的經濟互動中，必然已經蘊涵了重大的政治效應。例如，三通直航或ＥＣＦＡ，皆不只是經濟事件，同時也是重大的政治事件。雖然如此，兩岸畢竟仍有高層次的政治關係必須處理。

本文嘗試提出的思考是：從杯子理論到屋頂理論。先談杯子理論。中華民國是杯子，台灣是杯子裡面的水。過去北京的思維是，只想取水，而不要杯子。想像中，此法除非訴諸流血戰爭，不可能達成；但若訴諸武力，砸破杯子，恐將面對一灘覆水。

就歷史淵源看，中華民國這一只杯子，曾以辛亥革命締造共和，並主持北伐及抗日戰爭，且台灣亦由中華民國所光復；再就現實看，今天的台灣，在中華民國的杯子裡，是一個自里長至總統皆直選的民主政體。也就是說，「中華民國」這只杯子，是「中國論述」與「民主實踐」的結晶體；無論中共或台獨，誰要砸破這只杯子，誰便須面對一灘覆水。

北京近年來的「思想解放」是值得肯定的。從「中華民國已經滅亡」，改版到「一個中國就是台灣法典中的一個中國」，再到「雖然尚未統一／仍是一個中國」；不啻已默認中華民國的地位。至於所謂「反對法理台獨」及「主張維持現狀」，也就是承認「中華民國體制不是台獨」的意思。

在北京眼中，顯然亦已認知，沒有「中華民國」這只杯子，就沒有水。若沒有中華民國這只杯子，台灣對北京會比西藏及新疆更為棘手萬倍。所以，在可以想像的時空中，「杯水合體」是未來兩岸關係的重要準則之一。

更進一步的思考是「屋頂理論」。兩岸關係可能發展至建立某種政治聯結，如今或許言之過早，但想像中的那種政治聯結，自應建立在一個超越「中華民國」與「中華人民共和國」的「第三概念」或「上位概念」之下。北京近年不再稱「一個中國就是中華人民共和國」，並謂「大陸與台灣同屬中國的一部分」；這些論述都含有「九二共識」的意味，其潛台詞則是「一中各表」。顯易可見，這類論述皆有將「一個中國」逐漸「第三概念化」的跡象。

倘若「一個中國」是「第三概念」，兩岸關係未來即不無可能在「屋頂理論」下討論如何聯結。或許有兩種可能：一、組成邦聯，在邦聯憲法或邦聯基本法下聯結。二、經由「和平協議」的特定條款，作成「維持現狀」的法制架構。這兩種想法，可能仍是過渡方案，但亦可視為終極處理。

以上看法，或許兩岸皆有人會認為不合時宜或異想天開。但是，若想砸破杯子，如何處理覆水？若想留住水，則豈能砸破杯子？

杯子理論也許聽來不順耳，但其實這不啻已然是兩岸當局的現行政策。北京希望以杯保水，台灣當局則是藉水保杯（以台灣的民主體制來維護中華民國）。理由很簡單：兩岸關係唯有賴「和平發展」始能漸進處理；既然和平是主旋律，北京與台北皆不可能砸破杯子。

杯子理論與屋頂理論，其實是一體的兩面。但「杯子理論」著眼於維持「和平發展」的過程；而「屋頂理論」則是對進行政治聯結的可能思考。唯不論未來是否走上「屋頂理論」，但如今已可證實：「杯子理論」是「兩岸關係和平發展」的中心準則，殆無疑義。