Beijing Tied the Knot, Beijing Must Untie the Knot

Beijing Tied the Knot, Beijing Must Untie the Knot
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 9, 2010

ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing published an article in the June issue of "China Review." In it he responded to National Taiwan University Professor Chang Ya-chung's concept of "cross-strait integration." He attempted to open a new and important path for the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. In the May issue of the "China Review" Zhang Nianchi of the Shanghai East Asia Institute published an article entitled 'Preconditions Necessary to Resolve the "Republic of China" Dilemma.' It was an attempt by the mainland side to break the political stalemate. It was a perspective with even more of an official stamp to it.

Professor Chang Ya-chung's "integration theory" states that "The two sides of the Taiwan Strait entail three entities." One is the "Republic of China." One is the "People's Republic of China." One is "China as a Whole." Taiwan is a part of "China as a Whole." The mainland is also part of "China as a Whole." As Chang Ya-chung explained, this is not the "two states theory." Instead it is predicated on the ultimate objective of "One Integrated China." But it also respects the current cross-Strait reality of one nation comprised of two entities.

Chang Ya-chung and others have advocated their "Integration theory" for years. Even President Chen Shui-bian echoed the theory in his 2000 New Year's Eve speech. He spoke of "Starting with cross-Strait economic and cultural integration," then jointly seeking "a new framework for political integration."

Zhang Nianchi called upon officials to confront the reality of the "Republic of China." Zhang Mingqing responded to Chang Ya-chung's "integration theory." This shows that that Beijing is making adjustments to its cross-Strait policy. One. Beijing seems to have already accepted the notion that "One China" or "China as a Whole" is a third concept that transcends both the ROC and the PRC. Two. Beijing apparently acknowledges that it must acknowledge the reality of the "Republic of China," or as Zhang Mingqing put it, "respect history, respect the reality, and be people-oriented."

On New Year's Day this year, this newspaper published a series of "Six New Year's Day Editorials." Professor Chang Ya-chung also offered a number of different views. We pointed out that the two sides do not have any insuperable differences. The two sides' views coincide in in two areas. One. The "Big Roof Theory." This defines "One China" or "China as a Whole" as a third entity or third concept. Two. The "Big Glass Theory." This defines Taiwan as water, and the Republic of China as the glass. As long as the glass remains intact, the water remains in the glass. But if the glass is broken, the water runs off. We feel that in order to ensure cross-Strait "peaceful development" these two pillars are indispensable.

In fact, over the past decade, Beijing has been thinking along the same lines. The only difference is it has waffled back and forth, and has been unable to make a conceptual breakthrough. For example, in 1997, ARATS Chief Wang Daohan pointed out that "One China does not mean the Peoples Republic of China. Nor does it mean the Republic of China. It means a unified China created by compatriots on both sides." He also proposed an "In Progress Style One China." In 1998, President Chen Qimao of the Shanghai Institute of International Relations pointed out that Beijing hoped Taipei would return to the "One China" policy. In other words, return to the "One China" defined in the Republic of China Constitution and the Guidelines for National Unification. In May 2000, Chen Shui-bian was elected President of the Republic of China. Xin Qi, a political advisor to the Beijng authorities, again pointed out that Beijing hoped to see the new leader in Taipei return to the "One China defined in the ROC Constitution and the Guidelines for National Reunification." Recently the mainland authorities have repeatedly used a number of different channels, including Zhang Mingqing, to underscore Hu Jintao's declaration that "Although the mainland and Taiwan have yet to be reunified, this does not change the fact that the mainland and Taiwan both belong to on China." We consider these two theories the indispensable pillars of the "Big Roof Theory" and the "Big Glass Theory."

We have pointed out that the Beijing authorities should jettison their "Old One China Theory" and its "Annihilate the Republic of China" mindset. They should adopt a "New One China Theory" that acknowledges the existence of the "Republic of China." Cross-Strait solutions proliferate. Some are goal oriented. Others are process oriented. We feel that the "Big Roof Theory" is nothing less than our "chosen goal." But more importantly the "Big Glass Theory" is our "chosen process." Without the "Big Glass Theory," there can be no "Big Roof Theory."

To implement the "Big Glass Theory," the Beijing authorities have many options. To reach a far off destination one must begin by taking tiny steps. To reach elevated heights one must assume a humble attitude. Beijing may as well begin with tiny steps. It can begin by removing the scare quotes from mainland news reports about ROC "legislators," and the ROC "President." It can stop objecting to the presence of ROC flags and the use of ROC official titles when mainland VIPs visit Taiwan. It can allow Taipei to sign FTAs with other countries. If it cannot take even these tiny steps, what's the point of discussing bigger ones?

At a moment such as this, we may wish to recall this newspaper's "New Three Proclamations." To wit, "There is only one China in the world. Both the ROC and the PRC are part of China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity are not subject to division."

Zhang Mingqing's article deserves affirmation. But Beijing tied the knot. Beijing must untie the knot!

繫鈴是北京 解鈴亦在北京
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.06.09 02:04 am

大陸海協會副會長張銘清，在《中國評論》六月號發表文章指出，台大張亞中教授提出的「兩岸統合」，不失為開創兩岸關係和平發展新局面的重要途徑之一。這是繼《中國評論》五月號刊出上海東亞研究所所長章念馳所撰〈創條件解「中華民國」難題〉的文章後，大陸方面對破解兩岸政治僵局，又一更具官方色彩的指標性論述。

張亞中教授「統合論」的主要觀點是：「兩岸有三個主體」，一個是「中華民國」，一個是「中華人民共和國」，另一個是「整個中國（第三主體）」。台灣是「整個中國」的一部分，大陸也是「整個中國」的一部分。張亞中解釋，這不是「兩國論」，而是在「一中統合」的終局目標下，尊重當前兩岸現實的一國兩體的運作設計。

「統合論」是張亞中等人倡議多年的理論，甚至陳水扁總統於二○○○年除夕談話也呼應指出，「從兩岸經貿與文化統合開始著手」，進而共同尋求「政治統合的新架構」。

章念馳呼籲面對「中華民國」，張銘清回應「統合論」，顯示北京正在嘗試調整其兩岸政策。主要的方向是：一、似乎已經接受「一個中國（整個中國）」是超越中華民國與中華人民共和國的第三主體或第三概念。二、顯然已經認知，在張銘清所說的「尊重歷史／尊重現實／以人為本」的前提下，「中華民國」是北京必須面對的課題。

本報在今年元旦發表〈元旦六論〉系列社論時，張亞中教授等曾提出不同見解。我們當時即指出，兩方的觀點並無絕對的歧異。最大的交集有二：一、皆是「泛屋頂理論」，將「一個中國（整個中國）」定位為第三主體或第三概念。二、亦皆是「泛杯子理論」（台灣是水，中華民國是杯子；杯在水在，杯破水覆）。我們認為，若要維持兩岸「和平發展」的進程，以上兩點是主要支柱，非此不成。

其實，十餘年來，北京方面也一直有此類思考，只是進進退退，迄無突破。例如：一九九七年，海協會長汪道涵即指出，「一個中國不等於中華人民共和國，也不等於中華民國，而是兩岸同胞共同締造統一的中國」，並提出「現在進行式的一個中國」的概念。再如，一九九八年，上海國際關係學會會長陳啟懋又指出，北京希望台灣回到「一個中國」的政策，就是回歸到台灣憲法及國統綱領中的「一個中國」。又如，二○○○年五月，陳水扁當選中華民國總統，北京智囊辛旗再度指出，希望見到台灣新的領導人能夠回到「在中華民國憲法及國統綱領定義下的一個中國」。尤其，近來，大陸方面更透過不同管道，包括張銘清此次，屢屢強調胡錦濤所說：「大陸和台灣雖尚未統一……這（並）沒有改變大陸和台灣同屬一個中國的事實。」我們認為，這些論述皆必須以「泛屋頂理論」及「泛杯子理論」為支柱，非此不成。

我們曾經指出，北京當局應當從「中華民國消滅」的「舊版一個中國」；改版到「中華民國存在」的「新版一個中國」。在各種兩岸解決方案中，有些強調「目的」，有些強調「過程」；我們認為，「屋頂理論」不失為「目的方案」，但更重要的是須以「杯子理論」為「過程方案」。沒有「杯子理論」，就不會有「屋頂理論」。

若要體現「杯子理論」，北京當局能為應為之事很多。行遠自邇，登高自卑，北京何妨先從幾件「小事」做起；小至將新聞報導中「立法委員」、「總統」的引號取消，再至大陸訪台賓客不避忌青天白日滿地紅國旗及政府官銜，再至不阻撓台灣與他國簽ＦＴＡ……。如果連這些「小事」都做不到，遑論其他？

值此省思時刻，何妨回味本報曾經提出的「新新三句」：「世界上只有一個中國，中華民國與中華人民共和國都是一部分的中國，中國的主權和領土不容分割。」

張銘清的文章應予肯定，但繫鈴是北京，解鈴也要看北京！