One Country, Two Governments: Blossoms from a Dead Branch

One Country, Two Governments: Blossoms from a Dead Branch
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 24, 2011

Chu Shulong is a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Chu published a paper at the Brookings Institute in Washington, advancing a "one country, two governments" concept. He urges the two sides to maintain the status quo of "one China, different interpretations." He says they should accept each other and recognize each other as the "central government" within "one China."

In the past, Beijing was strongly opposed to "one country, two governments." Chu Shulong knows this. Nevertheless he came forward with this proposal. He has promoted it three times in three years. Policymakers in Beijing however, have yet speak out against his proposal. As a result, scholars on Taiwan suspect Chu Shulong is "testing the waters." Their judgment is consistent with past experience.

Are policymakers in Beijing intentionally releasing a trial balloon? Perhaps they are playing along with the release of a trial balloon? Will this this line of thought become Beijing's policy? If so, it would be the biggest change in Beijing's policy in 60 years. To use Chu Shulong's language, the "central governments" in Taipei and Beijing must go from mutual denial of each other's status as a central government, to mutual acknowledgement of each other's status as a central government. Chu said that for officials on the two sides to address each other's leaders as "Mister" is abnormal. What he means is that when Chen Yunlin met Ma Ying-jeou, he should have referred to him as "President Ma."

Actually, Chu Shulong's understanding is a variation on the "big roof theory." Many variations of this cross-Strait perspective exist, on Taiwan and internationally. Even on the Mainland one hears talk of a "national sphere theory," of "Confronting the Existence of the Republic of China," and of how "Beheading (the Republic of China) is not easy." They all go around in circles. But they all arrive at the same spot. Today, Chu Shulong's proposal has caught the public eye, because for Beijing, "one country, two governments" remains taboo. Also, "one country, two governments" cuts the Gordian Knot at the crux of the cross-Strait impasse. Both the government and the opposition on the Mainland must surmount this political taboo. They must transform "one country, two governments" into a long-term solution for the cross-Strait impasse. This would constitute a macro level contribution to cross-Strait development.

Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office has refrained from commenting on Chu Shulong's proposal. Chu Shulong has not been shy about the topic, and continues to grant interviews. This suggests that the incident may have gone beyond the "testing the waters" stage. We suggest that the Taiwan Affairs Office respond with something along the lines of "we respect diversity of thought," or with a mantra such as "all issues are open to discussion." Otherwise it should continue saying "no comment." It should not burn its bridges, because "one country, two governments" does not violate the "one China principle."

The ROC government is holding its presidential election. This is not the time to discuss issues such as "one country, two governments." But if "one country, two governments" becomes a topic in future cross-Strait policy discussions, it will inevitably reduce consideration of Taiwan Independence as an possibility. The "one country, two governments" proposal may not be 100% consistent with the "one China, different interpretations." But it could be considered a variation on "one China, different interpretations." We should view it positively, as well-meaning. Both "one country, two governments" and "one China, two governments" start by recognizing the status quo. They maintain the status quo, then attempt to improve the situation; Therefore if actual policy debate begins, and a well thought out policy is presented, most of the public on Taiwan will understand and accept it.

Chu Shulong insists that "one country, two governments" already exists. The KMT government in Nanjing at one time recognized the CCP's Border Region Government. He said that "one country, two governments" has already been incorporated into the "five visions" issued by the KMT and CCP, and many other arguments advanced by Beijing, He said the two sides "already see things this way, but have yet to implement them." His perspective is credible. There is evidence for it. Yesterday this newspaper published an editorial, reiterating a "third concept of China, a China with divided rule, but undivided sovereignty and territory." At the macro level, this could be considered part of "one country, two governments." The difference between the two is that the "third concept of China" has slightly different connotations.

Actually, "one country, two governments" is the most straightforward "big roof theory." But past political constraints made mention of it taboo, As a result, a wide range of euphemisms for "one country, two governments" that shied from using the expression "one country, two governments." began to appear. Everyone assumed the expression "one country, two governments" could not longer be used. But Chu Shulong reintroduced it into the cross-Strait dialogue. Was he really "testing the waters?" Or did both the government and the opposition on the Chinese mainland give this taboo word a free pass? If so, this may enable the two sides to seek common solutions to cross-Strait problems.

If one examines the details of the "big roof theories," and "one country, two governments," one discovers a multitude of variations on "one country, two governments." None of them however, are at odds with the main thrust of the cross-Strait thought, without which there can be no solution. The "one country, two governments" concept was considered dead. Now however, it has once again made headlines. It can be likened to a bloom emerging from a dead branch, It comes as something of a shock, but also as a ray of hope.

一國兩府‧枯樹生花
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.06.24 02:55 am

北京清華大學教授楚樹龍在華府智庫布魯金斯研究院撰文，提出「一國兩府」概念，主張兩岸應協議維持「一中各表」的台海現狀，進而相互接受及相互承認對方是「『一個中國』之內的『中央政府』」。

大陸方面過去強烈反對「一國兩府」，楚樹龍對此不可能不知；但他出面公開作此主張，且連續三年說了三次，皆未見北京政策當局出面阻擋。因而，此間學者認為楚樹龍的說法「可能是從外圍試水溫」；在某種程度上，這樣的判斷符合經驗法則。

倘若這真是北京政策當局有意施放或無意阻擋的政治氣球，而如果此一思維未來能成為北京當局的政策方向，這無疑將是六十餘年來大陸方面最大的政策創新。用楚樹龍的語言來說，這就是要兩岸各自的「中央政府」從「相互否認」轉變成「相互承認」；他說，現在兩岸官員互稱對方領導人為「先生」，是不正常，不應該的。他所指的應當是：陳雲林見馬英九，應該稱「馬總統」。

其實，楚樹龍的見解即是「泛屋頂理論」，在台灣及國際上有極多兩岸論述皆可歸入此一類型；甚至在大陸上也有「國家球體理論」、「正視中華民國存在問題」，及「不宜採砍頭論（砍中華民國的頭）」等說法，迂迴曲繞，但皆為同一指向。如今，楚樹龍的說法之所以奪目，是因「一國兩府」本在大陸當局是重度禁忌詞，而「一國兩府」又毫無修飾地掀開了兩岸困局的癥結；倘若能夠自此使大陸朝野打破了這個政治禁忌，並使「一國兩府」之類的議論成為兩岸朝野共謀長遠方案的思考課題，這就對大局大勢極有裨益。

所以，北京國台辦迄今對楚樹龍的消息見報不作評論，而楚樹龍亦不避諱就此議題繼續接受專訪，皆可能使此事發生超越「試水溫」的作用。因此，我們建議國台辦應可考慮作出「尊重多元思維」之類的回應，或不妨使出「什麼問題都可以談」的口頭禪，以預留地步；否則亦應繼續「不作評論」，不要自斷後路。因為，「一國兩府」無違「一中原則」。

台灣正進入總統大選，不是討論「一國兩府」這類議題的時機。然而，如果「一國兩府」未來成為兩岸政策議題，必然將進一步壓縮台獨論述的空間；而「一國兩府」雖未必與「一中各表」完全符合，但可視為「一中各表」的一個可能形態。若從正面及善意的角度來看，「一國兩府」或「一中兩府」，是從承認現狀出發，朝向維持現狀及改善現狀；因此，可以推測，若能進入真實的政策辯論，且有平衡的配套，台灣多數民意對此或有理解及接納的可能。

楚樹龍直言無諱地說，「一國兩府」早已存在，國民黨南京政府即承認過中共的邊區政府。他又說，一國兩府，其實在國共「五大願景」及北京當局的其他許多論述中，「都已這麼看了，但還沒有這麼作」；此說亦信而有徵，可以參閱昨日本報社論。而本報昨日社論再次強調的「一個分治而不分裂的第三概念中國」，在大體系上亦可涵括「一國兩府」的主張，二者的差異可能是在對「第三概念的中國」內涵的認知不同。

其實，「一國兩府」是最直白的「泛屋頂理論」；卻因過去的政治限囿而成為禁忌詞，於是才有諸多「不說一國兩府，其實就是一國兩府」的修飾詞彙出現。如今，楚樹龍把這個大家都覺得已經不能再使用的「一國兩府」的舊詞彙，又帶回到兩岸議題的詞典中；倘若這真有「試水溫」的作用，倘若這對大陸朝野真是一次「禁忌詞的特赦」，應可為兩岸共謀解決方案添增許多智慧與契機。

猶如所有的「泛屋頂理論」，「一國兩府」的細節猶待探究，而「一國兩府」也可能有多種版本；但這皆無礙它是兩岸方案的主要思維方向，捨此無解。乍見以為早已死滅的「一國兩府」又上報紙頭條標題，猶如看見枯樹生花，有驚疑，也有期待。