Name Change in Hong Kong and Macao: The Chu Shulong Effect

Name Change in Hong Kong and Macao:
The Chu Shulong Effect
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 6, 2011

Chu Shulong, a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, recently put forth his "one country, two governments" concept. Taipei and Beijing both reacted with anticipation and dread. The Republic of China government's official representative in Hong Kong and Macao changed its name to the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office." This shows that cross-strait relations are gradually becoming more pragmatic, and that we can look forward to more such positive developments.

The DPP says that Chu Shulong's "one country, two governments" concept is "one China in disguise." It even says that the CCP "set the ball" for the KMT to spike. They intimated that this was "Hong Kong-ization," "Macao-ization," and laid the groundwork for reunification with the Chinese mainland. Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office said "These are merely the views of an individual scholar," and neither rebutted it nor endorsed it. President Ma Ying-jeou said "I feel it is something we can talk about, that can be discussed." But Ma later qualified his remarks, saying he "was referring to an academic discussion."

Chu Shulong's concept remains sketchy. Later he claimed that he never used the expression "one country, two governments" per se. But the basic premise is that the two sides should recognize each other and accept each other as "the central government" within "one China." Leaders on the two sides should not address each other as "Mister." This can be seen as a way to cut the cross-Strait Gordian Knot. Presumably Chu's "one China" refers to a "third concept of China" above and beyond the ROC and the PRC, and amounts to a form of the "Big Roof" concept. It argues that the authorities on both sides should refer to each other as "President Ma" and "President Hu." Is this not one of the primary goals both the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan have longed for over the past 20 years? Beijing said "These are merely the views of an individual scholar." That was predictable. But should the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan duck the issue in the same manner? Chu Shulong paid lip service to the concept. But the concept put advocates on Taiwan on the horns of a dilemma.

As mentioned earlier, Chu Shulong's "one country, two governments" has yet to be fleshed out. But "one country, two governments" should be the core concept both sides zero in on when seeking solutions. The problem is how to define "one country." The "one country" should not refer to either the ROC or the PRC. It should refer to a "third concept of China." Otherwise, how can one have two "central governments?" Such a "one country, two governments" or "one China, two governments" arrangement would resemble the European Union or a confederation. Why should we oppose an arrangement in which "the two sides recognize and accept each other as the central government?" Why should we oppose leaders from both sides addressing each other as "President?" Didn't people object vehemently when Chen Yunlin addressed Ma Ying-jeou as "Mister?"

Beijing's Taiwan Affairs Office said "These are merely the views of an individual scholar." It refrained from rebutting these "views of an individual scholar." But on Taiwan apparently, no one was willing to consider these views for even one minute. The DPP denounced it as reunification, plain and simple. The KMT dismissed it as insensitive to the feelings of the public on Taiwan. Both parties inexplicably, summarily dismissed the concept out of hand. The ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan insist on adopting this absurd attitude towards "the views of an individual scholar" on the Chinese mainland. Do they expect Beijing to propose an arrangement akin to "one country, two governments" some day? If so, do they expect Beijing to woo them, after they have displayed so little willingness to consider such arrangements?

The "first economics, then politics; first the easy, then the difficult" strategy is correct. But the "first economics, then politics" strategy was never meant to be a way to duck political problems indefinitely. Politics is more difficult than economics. Economics must pave the way for politics, and and soften its blow. But economic and cultural exchanges give rise to such concepts as "one country, two governments." They may merely be "the views of an individual scholar." But they should nonetheless be cherished. After all, "one country, two governments" has already led to the current improved situation. The two sides would see each other as the central government. They would refer to each other's leader as President. Such radical approaches to improving the cross-Strait situation must not remain taboo. The two sides must toss ideas back and forth. That will enable "the views of an individual scholar" to eventually become mainstream thought. We do not want Beijing to discourage "the views of an individual scholar." We want the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan to encourage and participate in such creative endeavors, We do not want them to indiscriminately and summarily slam the the door shut on such discussions. To do so is absurd. It also closes off one's own options.

Cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges have already passed the point of no return. Cross-Strait economic and trade relations have become inseparably intertwined. Therefore a framework akin to "one country, two governments" is increasingly indispensable. A Peace Agreement would offer us an interim solution. It would legalize and institutionalize premises such as "Beijing will not impose reunification," "Taipei will not promote independence," and "neither side will resort to force." It is true that economics must precede politics. But one cannot delay until economic and social relations are set in stone. If one delays that long, one will lose political bargaining power. Beijing may be able to procrastinate. But Taipei cannot. In other words, when seeking a cross-Strait political solution, Taipei must accurately estimate its stop-loss and profit taking points. Today we may turn up our noses up at "one country, two governments." But some day soon we may beg for "one country, two governments," only to realize we held out too long. It is a case of "Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, old time is still a-flying. And this same flower that smiles to-day, tomorrow will be dying."

The response of the DPP, shows that ideas akin to "one country, two governments" are the most effective antidote to Taiwan independence. The Democratic Progressive Party opposes "one country, two governments." Does the Democratic Progressive Party oppose the two sides recognizing each other as the central government? Does it oppose the leaders of the two sides referring to each other as President? Does it oppose a cross-Strait arrangement that more closely resembles the European Union or a confederation, via the "one country, two governments" concept? If it does, then the DPP can characterize anything as "reunification in disguise," even the "China Travel Agency" being renamed the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Office."

Chu Shulong's "one country, two governments" concept is merely "the views of an individual scholar." Nevertheless we welcome such creative cross-Strait policy proposals, free from self-imposed taboos. We look forward to more creative solutions to cross-Strait problems. A more rational process will lead to clearer goals. Therefore we agree with President Ma's comments. Ma said that all proposals, whether "one this" or "two that" have advantages and disadvantages. "But I feel we can talk about them, we can discuss them." Later, a presidential office spokesman qualified Ma's remarks, saying Ma meant "we can discuss them in an academic context."

Now that the ROC representative to Hong Kong and Macao has changed its name, cross-Strait relations can become more flexible, more imaginative, and more pragmatic. We urge the three parties on the two sides of the Strait to reread this newspaper's editorial of June 23, entitled "A Peace Agreement is an Interim Solution."

從駐港澳機構更名談楚樹龍的龍尾效應
聯合報╱社論】
2011.07.06 03:18 am

北京清華大學教授楚樹龍提出「一國兩府」的構想，使兩岸思維中「既期待又怕受傷害」的心態流露無遺。然而，我駐港澳機構更名為「台北經濟文化辦事處」，卻顯示兩岸對等關係的發展，確有逐步提升落實的空間，更應有可以期待的想像空間。

民進黨說，楚樹龍的「一國兩府」是「化妝後的統戰」，甚至認為這是中共「作球給國民黨」；但接著就指，這是香港化、澳門化，這就是準備與大陸統一。北京國台辦則稱：「這只是學者個人的意見。」未加批駁，也不予背書。馬英九總統則指，「我覺得可以談，可以討論」，後來又補正「是指可以學術討論」。

楚樹龍的論述未盡周延，後來他且自稱並未說出「一國兩府」四字，但其主要架構，如兩岸應相互承認並相互接受為「一個中國」之內的「中央政府」，及不應互稱對方領導人為「先生」等，卻可謂是打開了兩岸困局的死結；倘若他所說的「一個中國之內」，是指一個超越中華民國與中華人民共和國的「第三概念的中國」，或「屋頂理論」，且又認為應互稱兩岸當局為「馬總統」及「胡主席」，這豈不正是台灣朝野二十餘年來在兩岸競合關係中最重要的期待之一？面對這樣的提議，北京方面說「這只是學者個人的意見」尚可想像，但台灣朝野何以卻避之若浼？葉公好龍，楚樹龍的一條龍尾，竟使台灣的好龍者進退失據。

如前所述，楚樹龍所說的「一國兩府」雖尚待仔細析論，但「一國兩府」的毛坯概念，卻應當正是兩岸未來解決方案中最核心的基本元素；問題只在如何對「一國」定義，而此處所稱的「一國」，應不是指「中華民國」或「中華人民共和國」，而當是指「第三概念的中國」，否則怎會有兩個「中央政府」？倘係如此，這樣的「一國兩府」或「一中兩府」，與歐盟模式或邦聯已庶幾近之；則為何要反對「兩岸互相承認及接受為中央政府」？為何要反對兩岸互稱對方領導人為「總統」及「國家主席」？我們不是曾為陳雲林稱馬英九為「先生」而吵成一團嗎？

北京國台辦說「這只是學者個人的意見」，但台灣竟然對北京當局亦未加批駁的「學者個人的意見」，似乎連一分鐘也不想讓它活下去；民進黨人說這就是要統一，國民黨人說這沒有照顧台灣人民情感，如此這般莫名其妙的三言兩語就把這條龍尾給趕跑了。台灣朝野若竟用如此荒謬的態度對待大陸「學者個人的意見」，試想如何期待北京當局有朝一日也提出類如「一國兩府」的主張，難道要北京用熱臉來貼台灣的冷屁股？

兩岸互動「先經後政／先易後難」的策略是正確的；但「先經後政」，並非即可永遠迴避政治方案，而是因政比經難，須用經濟來緩化、柔化、轉化政治關係。然而，倘若當經濟文化交流孕生出如「一國兩府」這類的構想，即使「只是學者個人的意見」，也應珍惜；一方面是因「一國兩府」已對現狀有了翻覆性的改善（互視為中央政府，互稱總統及主席）；另一方面，只要這類翻覆性的改善構想能成為兩岸非禁忌的政策議題，相激相盪，就極有可能由「只是學者個人的意見」成為主流思維。因此，我們不希望北京自此遏制這類「學者個人意見」，更認為台灣朝野若非但不鼓勵及參與這類改善構想的創發，反而竟如此不分青紅皂白地立即關上了借題討論的大門，這非但是荒謬至極，且不啻是在自蹙生機。

兩岸的社會及經貿交流已過了不可折返點。而兩岸的社會及經貿愈分不開，就愈應及早建立一個類如「一國兩府」、「和平協議」的「中程方案」，俾使「大陸的不統」與「台灣的不獨」，及「兩岸的不武」，可有相當期間的法制化與穩固化。因此，雖然「先經後政」，但不能拖到經濟社會關係已經完全「套住」，屆時台灣即可能對政治方案失去了議價條件。大陸可以拖到那一天，台灣卻絕不可拖到那一天。也就是說，台灣必須準確拿捏兩岸政治方案的「停損點」與「停利點」；今日若對「一國兩府」嗤之以鼻，來日卻有可能對「一國兩府」求之而不可得。正是：有花堪折直須折，莫待無花空折枝。

由民進黨的反應，可見「一國兩府」之類的構想，正是化解台獨論述的最有效處方。民進黨反對「一國兩府」，試問：能不能說，民進黨反對兩岸互相承認為中央政府？反對兩岸互稱對方領導人為總統及國家主席？反對兩岸關係可經「一國兩府」趨近歐盟化及邦聯的可能性？倘係如此，民進黨亦可將「中華旅行社」更名「台北經濟文化辦事處」，稱作「化妝後的統戰」。

即使楚樹龍的「一國兩府」只是「學者個人的意見」，我們仍歡迎這類有突破性的創見能成為兩岸無禁忌的政策議題，更期望兩岸關係能經由這類創見的交互激盪，由「合理的過程」，通向「改善之目的」。因而，我們比較同意馬總統對此一事件的評論。他說：不管「一什麼，二什麼」的主張，都有其優、缺點，「但我覺得可以談，可以討論」，後來總統府發言人補正為「可以學術討論」。

從台灣駐港澳機構更名作起，兩岸關係應有更靈動的想像與更務實的作為，在此建議兩岸三黨回頭再看一看本報六月二十三日的社論〈和平協議就是中程方案〉。