Beijing Must Rethink Its Cross-Strait Relations Map

Beijing Must Rethink Its Cross-Strait Relations Map
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 21, 2010

Yesterday former premier Liu Chao-hsuan spoke at Tsinghua University in Beijing. He pointed out that cross-strait relations should contribute to human civilization. For example, England's Industrial Revolution introduced the rule of law and human rights. America's independence and founding brought about popular rule.

The last time the two sides of the Taiwan Strait clashed then merged, was during the Ming dynasty, when Koxinga and the Qing court clashed. In the end, Shi Lang resolved the issue by means of military force. The Qing dynasty, a large absolute monarchy, swallowed up the Ming dynasty Koxinga regime, a small absolute monarchy. That cross-Strait merger expanded the Qing empire's territory. But otherwise it contributed nothing to human civilization. Subsequently, in 1894, the Qing court ceded Taiwan to Japan.

Since 1949, the separation of the two sides has made a significant contribution to world civilization. On Taiwan, the Republic of China government became a model for the political and economic development of emerging nations. On the mainland meanwhile, the People's Republic of China government rose to its feet following a "Thirty Year Long Catastrophe." The world's attention is focused on the miracle of "China's Rise." Today the two sides have moved from life or death struggle to "peaceful development." This remarkable cross-Strait interaction no longer poses the question of "who will swallow up whom" faced by the Ming dynasty Koxinga regime and the Qing Court. Instead, it has the potential to make a significant contribution human civilization.

The mainland has a responsibility toward Taiwan. The mainland is big. Taiwan is small. Taiwan has a liberal democratic society. It occupies the moral and civilizational high ground. The mainland has no reason to drag Taiwan down. If in the end the matter is settled by means of military force, on the basis of "who swallows up whom," that would be intolerable to human civilization.

Fortunately, there is reason for optimism amidst pessimism. [Mainland] China's "peaceful rise" is already contributing to world civilization. Historically the "rise of great nations" has always been based on military invasions and economic exploitation. The Industrial Revolution was followed by eighteenth and nineteenth-century imperialism. The major powers used their powerful navies to aid and abet greedy and bloodthirsty capitalists in their plunder. The working classes within these major powers however, did not benefit. They too were exploited. But this time, the rise of [mainland] China is based on the exchange of meager profits between cheap labor and powerful capitalists. Sweatshop laborers have become the prime movers and first wave of beneficiaries in this rise. This is the first time in history that sweatshops instigated the rise of a great power from the bottom-up. In fact, it is the only time in history that a great nation has ever risen peacefully. During the nineteenth century, the great powers rose, then forced China to cede territory and pay reparations. Today, China has been reborn. It has become the US's largest creditor. The Beijing authorities must take pride in this example of a "peaceful rise" created by sweatshops. It must not relinquish this honor lightly.

At the macro level, this "peaceful rise" is beneficial to cross-Strait "peaceful development." It is also why the two sides have no choice but to engage in "peaceful development." Today mainland China is closely intertwined with the global economy. That is why politically it cannot afford to have its rise called into question. If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait cannot engage in "peaceful development," if Beijing hopes to swallow up Taipei by force, that would offer grounds to reject [mainland] China's rise. Beijing's situation would be far more embarrassing than Washington's during the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would surely be a disaster.

In fact, the two sides already have a basic framework for "peaceful development." That framework is the "1992 Consensus" and "One China, Different Interpretations." The Beijing authorities should rethink their cross-Strait relations road map. They must not make "who swallows up whom" the ultimate goal in cross-Strait relations. Such a goal could turn into a trap for Beijing, one from which it could not extricate itself.

Beijing has long relied on fanatical nationalism to justify its Taiwan policy. In fact this has mired the Beijing authorities in an unwanted quagmire. The public on the mainland may favor getting tough with Taipei, and this sentiment can be exploited. But if Beijing swallows up the liberal democratic Republic of China by force, it would constitute a blow to world civilization and the Chinese people that the Beijing authorities could not withstand. But if we can change course, in a positive direction, we can arrive at a consensus with the mainland that contributes to world civilization. Cross-Strait relations has enormous opportunities for positive development. Therefore, the Beijing authorities should rethink their map for cross-Strait relations. It should not paint itself into a corner with self-imposed commitments. Cross-Strait relations must be allowed greater leeway. If the two sides cannot engage in "peaceful development," then the internal and external repercussions will make it impossible for [mainland] China to continue its "peaceful rise."

In fact, [mainland] China's "peaceful rise" and cross-Strait "peaceful development" are already off to a positive start. Cross-Strait coopetition offers an opportunity to make a significant contribution to world civilization. Do not forsake this precious opportunity. Moving towards "One China, Different Interpretations" is a path Beijing should consider.

The current framework, established by Ma Ying-jeou and Hu Jintao, has already reached its profit-taking and stop-loss points. This is a one time opportunity. If we miss the peak, if Beijing fails to rethink its road map, the impact on cross-Strait "peaceful development" will be difficult to predict. The risk to [mainland] China's "peaceful rise" is sure to increase.

北京必須修正兩岸關係路徑圖
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.21 02:21 am

行政院前院長劉兆玄日前在北京清華大學演說指出，兩岸關係的發展，應對人類文化有所貢獻；例如，英國在工業革命外帶來法治、人權，美國獨立建國則帶來平民政治等。

上一次兩岸關係的衝突與整合，發生在明鄭與清廷的對抗；最後是以施琅武力犯台收場，清朝那個大的君主專制政體，併吞了明鄭這個小的君主專制朝廷。那一次兩岸整合，除了為滿清帝國擴增疆域外，難謂對世界文明或人類文化作出任何貢獻。嗣後，在一八九四年，清廷甲午戰敗，將台灣割給日本。

此次自一九四九年以來的兩岸分離，已為世界文明創造了重大的貢獻。在台灣的中華民國，成為新興國家自由民主政經發展的典範；在大陸的中華人民共和國，則從「三十年浩劫」後重新站起，舉世皆在注目「中國崛起」的奇蹟。如今，兩岸從不共戴天的殊死惡鬥中，走向「和平發展」，這場舉世矚目的兩岸競合互動，應當不再是如明鄭清廷那一般「誰吃掉誰」的問題，而是很有可能為世界文明及人類文化作出重大貢獻。

大陸的責任大於台灣。因為大陸大，台灣小；而且台灣已是自由民主社會，在文明及道德上占了高度及優勢，大陸沒有道理將台灣往下拖。倘若最後只是以「誰吃掉誰」的武力吞滅收場，必為世界文明及人類文化所不容。

情勢在悲觀中存有樂觀的理由。中國大陸的「和平崛起」其實已為世界文明作出貢獻。歷史上的「大國崛起」，從來皆是軍事進犯與經濟侵略。以十八、十九世紀的帝國主義論，工業革命後，列強以艦炮為貪婪嗜血的資本家護航，四出掠奪；與此同時，這些強國在國內的勞工階級並未受惠，同樣飽受剝削。然而，此際的中國崛起，卻是以廉價勞工與列強資本家交換菲薄的利益而漸漸翻過身來，血汗工廠的勞工階層成為崛起的動力與首波受益者。這是歷史上第一次自血汗工廠「由下而上」的大國崛起，甚至也是唯一的一次「大國和平崛起」。十九世紀列強崛起，逼迫中國割地賠款；如今中國翻身，竟成了美國最大的債權人。北京政權應當珍惜這個以血汗工廠起步所創造的「和平崛起」的典範，不要保持不住。

這個「和平崛起」的大情勢，是兩岸得以「和平發展」的條件，也是兩岸不能不「和平發展」的理由。如今的中國大陸，在經濟上已與世界密切交織，所以在政治上也已禁受不起世界對其「崛起」的質疑。兩岸倘不能「和平發展」，北京若欲以武力吞滅台灣，將給世界找到不容中國「崛起」的理由；屆時，中國的處境必較美國侵略伊拉克狼狽萬倍，那絕對是一場大災難。

其實，兩岸的「和平發展」，亦已有了基本框架，那就是「九二共識／一中各表」。北京當局應該修正兩岸關係的路徑圖，不要迫使自己以「誰吃掉誰」為兩岸的終極目標。因為，那可能使北京掉入「承諾的陷阱」（commitment trap），無以轉圜，不能自拔。

長期以來，北京以大陸社會上狂熱的民族主義為對台政策的憑藉，這其實已使北京當局自陷於不由自主的危機中；何況，現實大陸輿情或許主張對台灣強硬，看似民氣可用；然一旦以武力吞滅了自由民主的中華民國，其對世界文明及中國人感情上的重創，絕非北京當局所能承受。若能改弦易轍，從積極面，改以為世界文明作出貢獻為大陸社會的共識，兩岸關係朝正面發展的空間其實非常寬闊。所以，北京當局應當修正兩岸關係的路徑圖，不要用危險的「自我承諾」，將自己逼到牆角；而應為兩岸關係預留較為寬裕的空間。兩岸若不能「和平發展」，其所牽動的內外效應，將使中國無以「和平崛起」。

其實，中國的「和平崛起」與兩岸的「和平發展」，皆已有了可以正面期待的開端；兩岸的競合關係，不是沒有為世界文明及人類文化作出重大貢獻的契機，切勿辜負這萬古不遇的珍貴機遇。朝向「一中各表」，是可以思考的路徑圖。

必須正視的是：目前以馬英九及與胡錦濤所形成的架構，大陸與台灣皆已交互到達停利點與停損點，可視為此一機遇的顛峰；若錯過此一顛峰，北京未修正路徑圖，兩岸「和平發展」的機遇難測，中國「和平崛起」的風險亦必將暴升。