Three Concepts Explaining the ROC and PRC: The Roof, the Glass, and Chopsticks

Three Concepts Explaining the ROC and PRC:
The Roof, the Glass, and Chopsticks
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 5, 2010

Some time ago, this newspaper devised a theoretical framework to explain the relationship between the Republic of China government in Taipei (ROC) and the Peoples Republic of China government in Beijing (PRC). We called it the Roof Theory, the Glass Theory, and the Chopsticks Theory. Now that ECFA has been signed, cross-Strait relations have taken another step toward this framework, which could be summed up as "A Glass and a Pair of Chopsticks under a Roof."

Let's start with the Chopsticks Theory. This is one of the suggestions we put forth over ten years ago, while the Lee Teng-hui administration was flip-flopping back and forth on cross-Strait policy. The Chopsticks Theory likens the Mainland and Taiwan to a pair of chopsticks. They cannot be bound together, i.e., reunified (in the near term), nor can they be separated, i.e., made independent. They need to be like a pair of chopsticks, as they are normally used. They must touch at certain points, but not at others. Only then they pick up food and scoop up rice. Only then can they fulfill their normal function as chopsticks. Back then, Beijing's main theme was "peaceful reunification" and "One Country, Two Systems." But it added "verbal attacks and military intimidation." On the Taipei side the mantra was "Avoid Haste, Be Patient." Taipei gradually entered the post-Lee Teng-hui era. The Chen Shui-bian regime gradually adopted a Taiwan independence line. Beijing would like to bind this pair of chopsticks together. Lee and Chen would like to separate them entirely. Both approaches prevent the chopsticks from functioning normally. Now however, we have entered the post-ECFA era. The main theme now is "peaceful development." Economically speaking, cross-Strait legal agreements enable this pair of chopsticks to function better. Politically speaking, the "1992 Consensus" and "One China, Two Interpretations" also enable this pair of chopsticks to function better. Cross-Strait relations are able to function like a pair of chopsticks. Some parts touch, others parts remain separate and are allowed to move about freely.

The Chopsticks Theory is premised upon the Glass Theory. The general thrust of the Glass Theory is that Taiwan is the water. while the Republic of China is the glass. As long as glass remains, the water remains. As soon as the glass is shattered, the water is scattered. Beijing once tried to eliminate the Republic of China. Meanwhile, the primary justification cited by the Taiwan independence movement for overthrowing the Republic of China was that Beijing would not tolerate the Republic of China's continued existence. Its argument was that since the Republic of China glass was no longer viable, it must be replaced with a "Nation of Taiwan" glass. We have now entered the post-ECFA era. The biggest change in cross-Strait relations is that Beijing has gradually changed its policy from "destroy the Republic of China" to "do not repudiate the Republic of China." Obviously it has realized that without the Republic of China glass it will not be able to hang on to Taiwan, and the cross-Strait situation will spiral out of control. Beijing has gone from denying the 1992 Consensus to accepting it. It has also refrained from publicly denying Taipei's "One China, Different Interpretations" argument. This can be considered progress toward the Glass Theory. With the Glass Theory, the Republic of China's primacy has been upheld. We can talk about the Chopsticks Theory later.

Finally, we have the Big Roof Theory. The Chopsticks Theory encompasses both integration and separation. The Glass Theory tends toward separation. By preserving the primacy of the Republic of China. the Roof Theory tends toward integration. While proposing cross-Strait integration, we spoke of three kinds of roofs. The first is a hard roof. This is a political roof, and encompasses such terms as "reunification" and proposals for a "Chinese confederation." The second is a soft roof. This encompasses such terms as "the Chinese people" and "the two sides of the Strait are one family." The third is a resilient roof. It is not as hard as the hard roof. Nor is it as soft as the soft roof. It is neither hard nor soft, but somewhere in the middle. This resilient roof is ECFA. ECFA has legally reinforced the hard links between the two sides. But the primacy of the Republic of China is unlikely to be harmed. The glass remains. Also, we have significantly improved soft interaction between the two sides. The chopsticks work more efficiently. This resilient roof is better than both the hard roof and the soft roof.

The primary theme of the post-ECFA era is "peaceful development." This was the theme of the 2005 Lien Hu Summit. Permit us to quote this newspaper's comments on what cross-Strait relations ought to be in the post-ECFa era. We should de-emphasize goal orientation, which stresses reunification or independence. We should emphasize instead process orientation, which stresses synergy and a win/win scenario. The common goal of both sides should be to improve our mutually-shared goal through of a rational process.

ECFA is a resilient roof. It reduces the urgency of political solutions to cross-Strait problems. The key factor is that the Glass Theory has become an implicit cross-Strait understanding. Beijing has already changed its rhetoric from "The Republic of China is already defunct" to "Although the two sides have yet to be reunified, they are still party of one China." This is another way of saying "One China, Different Interpretations." Cross-Strait interaction has been successfully institutionalized. Therefore it may become a nimble and responsive pair of synergistic, win/win chopsticks.

The Glass Theory is the core concept. The glass is a room under the roof of the Roof Theory. It is a single chopstick in the Chopstick Theory. Without the Glass Theory there can be no Roof Theory or Chopsticks Theory to speak of.

Cross-Strait relations today are like the glass or the chopsticks under the resilient roof. The authorities and public on both sides must cherish the new opportunities the post-ECFA era offers. For the sake of world civilization, human history, and cross-Strait relations, they must develop a model for "peaceful development." They must use a rational process to discover a better goal.

兩岸三論：巧屋頂下的杯子與筷子
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.07.05 01:53 am

後ECFA的兩岸新情勢，若用本報長期對兩岸關係的評論體系來說，可謂是又向「屋頂理論」、「杯子理論」與「筷子理論」更加趨近一大步。若作成口訣，可以說成：巧屋頂下的一只杯子與一雙筷子。

先談筷子理論。這是十餘年前在李登輝政府對兩岸政策擺盪不定之際，我們所提出的建言。大陸與台灣像一雙筷子，不能綁在一起（統一），也不能切分兩處（獨立）；應當像我們平常使用的一雙筷子那般，有些地方「合」，有些地方「分」，才能挾菜扒飯，發揮筷子正常操作的功效。在那個時候，北京方面的主調是「和平統一／一國兩制」，加上「文攻武嚇」；台灣方面則是「戒急用忍」，且逐漸進入李登輝政府後期及陳水扁政府的台獨路線。北京想把這雙筷子綁在一起，李扁則欲將之拆成兩邊；這兩種辦法，皆使這雙筷子無法正常操作。如今，進入後ECFA時代，改以「和平發展」為主調；這雙筷子，因法制化的兩岸協議，在經濟互動上更密切（合），又因「九二共識／一中各表」亦在政治區隔上更穩定（分）；也就使得兩岸關係更像我們平常使用的一雙筷子，有分有合，靈動自如。

筷子理論需以杯子理論為前提。杯子理論的大意是：「台灣」是水，「中華民國」是杯子；杯在水在，杯破水覆。過去，北京欲消滅中華民國，台獨也要顛覆中華民國；而台獨主張顛覆中華民國的主要理由，是因為北京不容中華民國存在。台獨的說法是，中華民國這只杯子既然保不住，就另換一只「台灣國」的杯子。如今，進入後ECFA時代，兩岸關係的最大變化，就是北京的政策從「消滅中華民國」，逐漸轉變成「不否認中華民國」；顯已認知，沒有「中華民國」這只杯子，就保不住「台灣」，兩岸情勢也必失控。北京從否認到接受「九二共識」，且未公開否定台北宣示的「一中各表」；這些皆可視為「杯子理論」的重要進展。有了杯子理論，台灣的主體性得以維護，然後始可言筷子理論。

最後談屋頂理論。就筷子理論的「有分／有合」而言，杯子理論傾向「分」，在維護中華民國的主體性；屋頂理論則傾向「合」，在主張兩岸的聯結性。我們曾說，「屋頂」有三種：一、硬屋頂，是政治性的屋頂，如「統一」或「中華邦聯」。二、軟屋頂，如「中華民族」、「兩岸都是一家人」。三、巧屋頂，不像硬屋頂那麼硬，也不像軟屋頂那麼軟，而是不硬不軟、軟硬適中；這個巧屋頂，就是ECFA。亦即，ECFA在法制上加強了兩岸的「硬聯結」，但台灣的主體性不因此受傷（杯子仍在），且又大幅提升了兩岸的「軟互動」（筷子的功效更佳）；這誠然是比硬屋頂、軟屋頂都好的巧屋頂。

後ECFA時代的兩岸主題是「和平發展」，這是2005年「連胡會」定的調。若再用本報對兩岸關係的評論體系來說，後ECFA時代，也應當是一個「目的論」（強調統獨）下降，「過程論」（強調互動雙贏）上升的時代；兩岸共同努力的目標應當是：經由「合理的過程」，邁向「改善之目的」。

ECFA是一座「巧屋頂」，使兩岸的「政治解決」降低了緊迫性；其關鍵因素，則是因「杯子理論」成為兩岸默契，北京已從「中華民國已經滅亡」的論調，轉向「雖然尚未統一，仍是一個中國」，亦即以另一種修辭表達「一中各表」；亦因此，兩岸互動得以在法制化上順利邁進，有可能自此變成一雙靈動自如、共生雙贏的筷子。

相對而言，「杯子理論」是核心概念。「杯子」在「屋頂理論」中，就是有主體性的「一間房間」，在「筷子理論」中就是具主體性的「一隻筷子」。沒有「杯子理論」，也就沒有「屋頂理論」或「筷子理論」可言。

現今的兩岸關係，猶如在「巧屋頂」下的一只「杯子」與一雙「筷子」。兩岸當局及兩岸人民皆當珍惜這個後ECFA時代的兩岸新機遇，為世界文明、人類歷史及兩岸關係創造「和平發展」的典範，由「合理的過程」，通向「改善之目的」。