The Next 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations: A Broader Path, A More Elevated Perspective

The Next 60 Years of Cross-Strait Relations: A Broader Path, A More Elevated Perspective
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 16, 2009

The current "Two Sides, One Jiazi (traditional Chinese 60 year cycle) Seminar" is perceived as a second channel for communications between Taipei and Beijing. Speaking from a packed hall, Zheng Bijian, head of the Mainland delegation, made two remarks that left a deep impression. She said "Our vision will determine our prospects. Our thinking will offer us solutions."

The function of the seminar is to test the waters. Each side will of course express its views. Differences may arise during the seminar, whether from 60 years ago or a mere five years ago. There may be significant differences of opinion. But our vision and thinking are considerably more sophisticated than they once were, and cannot be thought of in the same terms. Consider the mainland delegation's remark that 30 years ago, Mainland China spoke of "assuming responsibility for world revolution," of "liberating Taiwan," and of "class struggle as the key." Today Zheng Bijian speaks of "Three Harmonies," specifically, international peace (he ping), domestic tranquility (he xie), and cross-strait reconciliation (he jie). Compare the present and the past. Our vision is bolder, and our thinking is freer. Twenty years ago, Beijing was saying that "The Republic of China has been destroyed." But today Liu Guosheng, President of Xiamen University, spoke of "national spheres vs. international spheres." He openly proclaimed that "China is a national sphere. It is comprised of two political authorities: the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. They sit back to back, each representing China like the two sides of the same coin." This represents an elevation of vision, and a broadening of thinking.

Zheng Bijian's interpretation allows us to borrow and fine-tune our vision and our thinking. The two sides have come a long way. Our vision does indeed determine our prospects. Our thinking does indeed offer solutions. But perhaps we should invert Zheng's formulation, and instead allow our prospects to determine our vision, and our solutions to determine out thinking.

What is vision? The main component of vision is knowledge. Mao Zedong foisted the Cultural Revolution and people's communes upon the public. He created a lethal cocktail of "Marxi/Engels/Lenin/Stalin/Mao" thinking. He did so primarily because he was intellectually ignorant. Song Jiang and Zhang Xienzhong could not control 20th century China. When Deng Xiaoping launched the "Bianshi (flog Mao's corpse) Revolution," he was forced to do so by circumstances. When he embarked on "reform and liberalization," he really wasn't sure where he was headed. Hence the metaphor of "crossing the river by feeling the stones" that has guided Beijing for the past twenty years. All of this was originally a result of intellectual uncertainty. But today, thirty years of reform and liberalization have been a huge success. Right and wrong are now clear-cut. Scientific data has replaced "satellite launches" (the exaggerated reporting of production figures). The profit motive has replaced the waving of red flags. Politics was once in command. Now knowledge rules the roost. Today the problem is no longer a lack of knowledge or a lack of vision. From this day forward, the limiting factor will be our prospects, our willingness to apply our knowledge and consult our consciences, and our determination to remain true to our ideals. Yesterday political ideology prevented us from finding a solution to our dilemma. Today we have found a solution, because our thinking is no longer constrained by political ideology. The main theme of cross-Strait relations in the future must be: "Our prospects determine our vision, our solution determines our thinking."

Given such an understanding, we were surprised by Zheng's conclusion: "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems." Actually "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems" should be considered obsolete pre-2008 thinking. Why? Because such a prospect prevents us from finding any solution. That is why the 2005 Lien/Hu Summit set forth the theory of "peaceful development." Our prospects were suddenly better. Our solution was suddenly obvious. Today we live in a post-2008 era. The "1992 Consensus" remains the overarching framework for cross-Strait policy, followed logically by "One China, Different Interpretations." This, in terms of our vision, our prospects, our thinking, and our solutions, has transcended the rhetoric of "peaceful reunification / one country, two systems." Were Zheng's remarks a case of backpedalling regarding prospects and solutions?

During the seminar the Beijing delegation said it recognized only the "1992 Consensus." It did not recognize "One China, Different Interpretations." But if even "One China, Different Interpretations" is seen as contrary to the "One China Principle," then "unification" means "I intend to swallow you up." Does such a prospect really offer any solution?

Beijing has said that "Anything is up for discussion." In fact, what the two sides need to discuss most is prospects and solutions. For example, what is "China," but a question of prospects? Must one side swallow up the other in cross-Strait politics? That is an issue pertaining to solutions.

Despite our differences, we vigorously affirm the vision and thinking of the current cross-Straits seminar. We expect that the coming 60 year cycle will offer an even broader vision, even brighter prospects, even more liberated thinking, and even more solutions for cross-Strait relations.

兩岸下一甲子：出路要寬，境界要高
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.16 03:37 am

這次「兩岸一甲子研討會」，被視為雙方的「二軌對話」。發言盈庭之中，大陸團長鄭必堅的兩句話令人印象深刻；他說：「眼界決定境界，思路決定出路。」

此會的功能既是投石問路，各抒己見亦是理所當然。然而，會中出現的歧見若與一甲子前、甚或五年前的歧見相較，歧見雖仍有歧見，但「眼界」與「思路」皆已有大幅的精進，不可同日而語。即以大陸方面的發言而論，三十年前，中國大陸對外主張「以世界革命為己任」，對台灣主張「解放台灣」，對內主張「以階級鬥爭為綱」；如今則出現了鄭必堅的「三和理論」（對外和平，對內和諧，兩岸和解）。今昔對照，眼界提高，思路亦開。又如，二十年前，北京的主旋律是「中華民國已經滅亡」，但如今則有廈門大學劉國深院長的「國家球體／國際星系」論，明白標舉：「中國這個『國家球體』的球面，是由中華人民共和國與中華民國兩個競爭中的政權構成，她們分別在背對背的空間和場合代表著中國，雙方形成了事實上『一體兩面』的關係。」這裡也看到了眼界與思路的提高和放大。

鄭必堅的說法，容我們借用並調整一下。我們認為，兩岸能從過去走到今天，確實是「眼界決定境界／思路決定出路」；但欲從今天走向未來，也許應當調整成「境界決定眼界／出路決定思路」。

什麼是眼界？眼界的主要成分是知識。毛澤東之所以用人民公社及文化大革命，來實踐其「馬／恩／列／史／毛」的「雞尾酒式的共產主義」，主要是因他的知識貧弱；宋江加張獻忠不能治理二十世紀的中國。到了鄧小平等發動對毛澤東的鞭屍革命，則主要仍是迫於形勢不得不然；至於提出「改革開放」的主張，其實當時一切都還說不準，所以「摸著石頭過河」這句話用了二十餘年，原因亦在知識上的不確定性。但是，到了今天，改革開放三十年已見巨大成效，是非黑白已是一清二楚，科學統計數字已代替了「放衛星」，利潤誘因則代替了「搖紅旗」；一切已從政治掛帥變成知識掛帥。所以，就知識與眼界而論，如今皆已不是問題；從現在走向未來，決定因素是在境界，也就是決定在使用知識的良知、理想與胸襟。相對而言，過去以政治意識形態的「思路」，侷限了「出路」；如今若看見了「出路」，則不能再被政治意識形態的「思路」所綑綁。同樣的道理，這也應當是未來兩岸關係的主軸思維：「境界決定眼界，出路決定思路。」

出於這樣的見解，我們對鄭必堅的談話仍以「和平統一／一國兩制」為歸結，頗感意外。其實，「和平統一／一國兩制」應當是「前二○○八」的語彙；正因此一論述的「境界」與「出路」皆有侷限，所以才有二○○五年「連胡會」提出了「和平發展論」，是「境界」的提升，也是「出路」的放大。到了「後二○○ 八」的今天，「九二共識」已是兩岸的政策主軸，「一中各表」則是其必然存在的潛台詞；這無論在眼界、境界、及思路、出路上，皆已超越了「和平統一／一國兩制」的論述。鄭必堅的談話，會不會是境界與出路上的倒退？

北京方面有人在會中說，只承認「九二共識」，不承認「一中各表」。但是，倘若連「一中各表」也被視為違背「一個中國的原則」，且所謂的「統一」也就是「我吃掉你」；試問，這個方案的「境界」如何？又難道會是「出路」？

北京一直說「什麼都能談」；其實，兩岸要談的就是「境界」與「出路」。例如，什麼是「中國」，其實是一個「境界」的問題；又如，兩岸的政治方案是否只有「我吃掉你」一個版本，則是「出路」問題。

我們對這次充滿「歧見」、但眼界與思路皆已見相對開闊的兩岸研討會表示高度肯定，亦對下一甲子的兩岸關係可望有更加開闊的眼界、境界、思路、出路，寄以高度的期待。