Beheading the Republic of China: Beijing Should Reconsider

Beheading the Republic of China: Beijing Should Reconsider
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 18, 2010

Zhang Nianchi of the East Asia Institute in Shanghai has posted a special article in the May edition of the China Review. The title of the webpage is: "Establish the Preconditions Necessary to Resolve the Republic of China Conundrum."
We do not know whether this article reflects the thinking of decision-making circles within the CCP. But if Beijing wants a key that can unlock cross-Strait problems, the above article should be considered a valuable draft.

Zhang Nianchi wrote that he spoke with a "member of the public on Taiwan." That member of the public told Zhang that "[Beijing's] refusal to recognize the Republic of China, is akin to chopping off our head. What good does it do to leave the four limbs and the five organs intact?" Zhang Nianchi said people who think like this do not necessarily support Taiwan independence.

Actually "members of the public on Taiwan" who think like this could never be supporters of Taiwan independence. The goal of Taiwan independence is to replace the Republic of China's head. The goal of Taiwan independence is to use the Republic of China as a shell company, in order to engage in backdoor listing. The goal of Taiwan independence is to exploit the Republic of China, to assert that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current name is the Republic of China." The implication being that "Its future name will be the Republic of Taiwan." Such political sleight of hand is another matter than can be discussed some other time. The Beijing authorities must realize that the fundamental reason Taiwan independence has been able to grow is that Beijing refuses to recognize the Republic of China, and wants to chop off the Republic of China head. Beijing's desire to chop off the Republic of China head inspired the Taiwan independence movement to "replace the Republic of China head."

Beijing understands of course that preserving the Republic of China head is the best way to shrink the Taiwan independence movement's maneuvering room. But this is merely a passive means of addressing cross-Strait problems. As for active means, regardless of whether we are looking at

The future may involve the maintenance of the status quo. It may involve signing ECFA or a peace agreement. It may involve the establishment of an EU model or a confederation. It may even involve reunification. But no matter what, Taiwan must be entrusted to the Republic of China. If the Republic of China head is chopped off, what is there left to talk about?

Actually the Beijing authorities know this. They know that without the Republic of China, there can be no "peaceful development" of cross-Strait relations. But in practice Beijing remains mired in serious self-contradictions. For example, CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao said that "Although the two sides have yet to be reunified, the mainland and Taiwan have always belonged to one China. This is not merely our position. It also appears in existing regulations and documents on Taiwan." The "regulations and documents" Hu Jintao was referring to was of course the Republic of China Constitution. President Hu Jintao made these remarks following the passage of the Anti-Secession Law. He meant to say that the Republic of China Constitution is also a "One China Constitution." He asked how Taiwan independence can be tolerated, given that it is "unconstitutional?" But such an argument contains an obvious and serious contradiction. Since Beijing refuses to recognize the Republic of China, and wants to cut off the Republic of China's head, how can it demand that the public on Taiwan abide by the Republic of China Constitution and support the Republic of China?

In his article Zhang Nianchi discussed a variety of theories on cross-Strait relations. Among them was the "glass theory" proposed by the UDN News. The "glass theory" compares the Republic of China to a glass. Republic of China citizens on Taiwan are akin to the water in the glass. If cross-Strait relations dispenses with the glass, what happens to the water? Zhang Nianchi's said "the public on Taiwan is the water in the glass." This differs slightly from the UDN News understanding. As we see it, Taiwan refers not merely to the public, but also to a free and democratic politico-economic system. Given the "glass theory" metaphor, how can the Beijing authorities refuse to recognize the Republic of China Constitution on the one hand, and expect the public on Taiwan to respect its "One China Constitution?" Is this not the same reasoning as "the existence of the glass ensures the existence of the water / the breaking of the glass means the loss of the water?"

Consider the issue at a deeper level. The Republic of China is a liberal democracy that elects its own president. Unless Beijing resorts to military force, how can it avoid dealing with the Republic of China? If Beijing uses non-peaceful means to swallow up this liberal democracy, one that belongs to China and is opposed to Taiwan independence, it will be committing a grievous sin against human civilization and against Chinese culture. Today's cross-Strait conflict is no longer merely a civil war between the KMT and the CCP. It concerns global civilization and the Republic of China's liberal democracy. It concerns China's sons and daughters down through the ages, and how we should deal with this liberal democracy that belongs to China and is opposed to Taiwan independence. Isn't "chopping of its head" or "smashing the glass" incompatible with "peaceful development?"

Zhang Nianchi is political consultant to the Beijing authorities. He embraces Chinese civilization and understands Taiwan. The UDN News has advocated "process orientation" instead of "goal orientation." Zhang can be considered "process oriented." If we have correctly understood his arguments, he advocates "establishing the preconditions necessary to resolve the Republic of China Conundrum." Zhang Nianchi's article identifies the real cross-Strait "conundrum." Beijing must deal with the Republic of China. His is an innovative and practical cross-Strait policy proposal.

The Beijing authorities must recognize that Taiwan independence is largely the result of pressure from Beijing. Even Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian's moves toward independence were primarily the result of Beijing preventing them from taking the "Republic of China" path. Beijing now understands that the "One China Constitution" is the legal umbilical cord that connects the two sides. Therefore it ought to view the Republic of China from the perspective of the "glass theory." It may wish eventually to discuss the "roof theory," or a peace agreement, or a confederation, or even reunification. But if Beijing does not allow the public on Taiwan to feel that the Republic of China is part of China, then it cannot make them think of themselves as Chinese. Nor can it elevate cross-Strait relations to the level of "peaceful development." In short, in order to prevent Taiwan independence, Beijing must not chop off the Republic of China head. In order to harmonize the two sides, Beijing must not shatter the Republic of China glass. The UDN News began expressing these views on cross-Strait relations beginning with "Six New Years Day Editorials."

Zhang Nian Wang Chi was the late Wang Daohan's right hand man. In 1997 Wang Daohan proposed an "In Progress Style One China." The UDN News has made a major revision to his thinking. It has changed a "One China in which the Republic of China has been eliminated" to a "One China in which the Republic of China has been preserved." Zhang Nianchi advocates "establishing the preconditions necessary to resolve the Republic of China Conundrum." This may be seen as a variant of the "In Progress Style One China." He voices many caveats in his article. But he maintains that "issues of sovereignty are all matters of perception." His vision is bold, his courage commendable, and his words admirable.

How should we deal with the Republic of China? Our "Six New Years Day Editorials" suggest that the more we move toward the 1992 Consensus and "One China, Different Interpretations," the more cross-Strait relations will undergo "peaceful development." The more rational the cross-Strait process will become, and the clearer cross-Strait goals will be.

"Chopping off the Republic of China head" and "peaceful development" are mutually contradictory. If we uphold "One China, Different Interpretations," we already have "One China." We can already ensure against backsliding. Conditions can only improve. Why subject "One China" to the vagaries of the future?

面對中華民國 北京應檢討「砍頭論」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.18 02:39 am

上海的東亞研究所所長章念馳，在五月號《中國評論》發表專文，該文在網站上的標題是：〈創條件解「中華民國」難題〉。

我們不知這篇文字是否反映了中共決策圈的思考，但北京方面若想打造一把解開兩岸難題的鑰匙，該文所述可謂即是一張珍貴的草圖。

章念馳在文中引述他與一名「台灣民眾」的談話。那位台灣民眾對章說：「（北京）不承認『中華民國』，好比砍了我們的頭，那麼留下四肢五臟還有什麼用？」章念馳說，具有這樣想法的人未必是支持「台獨」。

其實，具有這樣想法的「台灣民眾」本就不會支持「台獨」。因為，台獨的目標就是要否定中華民國，要「換」掉中華民國的「頭」；至於「借殼上市」，謂「現在的名字叫中華民國」云云，那則是政治操作的手法，另當別論。中共當局應知：台獨得以滋長的根本原因，就是北京不承認中華民國，要砍掉中華民國這一顆「頭」；正因北京的「砍頭論」，所以造成了台獨的「換頭論」。

北京當然知道：有了「中華民國」這顆「頭」，是使台獨縮小操作空間的最佳對策。但是，就解決兩岸難題言，這猶只是消極的目標；至於積極的目標，未來無論是維持現狀、簽訂ＥＣＦＡ、簽訂和平協議、走向歐盟模式、建構邦聯，甚或統一，台灣皆須以中華民國為憑託，若砍掉了這顆「頭」，還有什麼可談？

其實，中共當局深知此理，亦即，沒有中華民國就沒有兩岸關係的「和平發展」可言；但是，北京方面在實際操作上，卻一直陷於嚴重的自我矛盾。例如，中共總書記胡錦濤也說過：「儘管兩岸尚未統一，大陸和台灣同屬一個中國的事實從未改變。這不僅是我們的立場，也見之於台灣現有的規定和文件。」此處所指的「規定和文件」，其實主要是指「中華民國憲法」。胡錦濤發表這段談話，是在《反分裂國家法》立法時際；其意是說，中華民國憲法也是「一中憲法」，台獨豈可「違憲」？但此說的嚴重矛盾顯而易見：北京既否認中華民國，要「砍」中華民國的「頭」，如何又要台灣民眾遵奉信守中華民國憲法？支持中華民國？

章念馳在文中論及多種關於兩岸關係的學說理論，其中亦提到本報主張的「杯子理論」。章對「杯子理論」的引述是：把「中華民國」比作杯子，台灣人民比作杯子裡面的水；兩岸關係如果不要杯子，水焉能存？章念馳的引述說「台灣人民是杯子裡面的水」，與本報主張「台灣是杯子裡面的水」，稍有出入，因為「台灣」不止有人民，還包括了自由民主的政經體制及其他。而以「杯子理論」為喻，北京當局豈能一方面不承認中華民國憲法，又另一方面竟要台灣遵行「一中憲法」？這豈不亦與「杯在水在／杯破水覆」是同一道理？

更深層次的思考是：中華民國已然是一直選總統的自由民主政體，北京除非採取軍事暴力手段處理台灣問題，將如何可能迴避中華民國？而若北京以非和平手段吞滅了中華民國這個「中國的／非台獨的」自由民主政體，在人類文明及中國文化上又將是何等罪孽？兩岸問題的層次，如今絕非只是「國共內戰」的層次，而是世界文明應當如何面對中華民國這個自由民主政體的問題；亦是中國的永世子孫，應當如何面對這個「中國的／非台獨」的自由民主的中華民國的問題？試問：「砍頭論」或「砸杯論」，如何能與「和平發展」相容不悖？

章念馳是一位對中國文明深具懷抱，且對台灣底蘊感觸敏銳的北京智囊。若以本報所舉「過程論／目的論」的光譜言，他應是偏向「過程論」；倘若對他的文章解讀無誤，他如今主張〈創條件解「中華民國」難題〉，似乎也能從「杯子理論」來看待中華民國。章念馳的文章點出了兩岸真正的「難題」，在於北京必須面對中華民國，這堪謂是極具創意及實際功能意義的兩岸方案。

中共當局必須承認，台獨大半是北京逼出來的。即使李登輝、陳水扁走向台獨，也主要是因北京不容他們走「中華民國」這一條路。北京如今既知「一中憲法」是兩岸的「法理維繫」，即應從「杯子理論」來理解中華民國；縱使未來要談「屋頂理論」，或和平協議或邦聯或統一，如果不使台灣人民感受到「中華民國是一部分的中國」，即無可能使台灣人民認同自己是「中國人」，也就無可能使兩岸關係有更高層次的「和平發展」。總之，要抵拒「台獨」，不可砍掉中華民國這顆「頭」；要「融和」兩岸，更不能砸破中華民國這只「杯子」。這也是本報自〈元旦六論〉以來，對兩岸議題所表達的基本觀點。

章念馳是汪道涵的左右手。汪道涵在一九九七年就提出了「現在進行式的一個中國」；本報曾將此種思維解讀為「一個中國」的大改版，亦即從「中華民國消滅的一個中國」，改版為「中華民國存在的一個中國」。章念馳如今倡議〈創條件解「中華民國」難題〉，應可視為仍屬「現在進行式的一個中國」的折射。他在文中的論述雖諸多保留，但仍見「什麼主權觀念等等問題，都是取決於我們的意識」之類的大膽創見，其勇可嘉，其言可佩。

如何面對中華民國？依據我們自〈元旦六論〉以來的建議：只要愈向「九二共識／一中各表」靠攏，就愈能使兩岸關係「和平發展」，亦即愈能從「合理的過程」，通向「改善之目的」。

「砍頭論」與「和平發展」是相互矛盾的。若能盡量體現「一中各表」，現在就是「一個中國」；就可使現狀不致倒退，而只會提升，只會改善，何必將「一個中國」推拒於變幻莫測的未來？