Tsai Ing-wen's Word Games with the Resolution on Taiwan's Future

Tsai Ing-wen's Word Games with the Resolution on Taiwan's Future
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 26, 2011

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen is once again paying lip service to the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Once again, the DPP has returned to its old tricks. It is playing word games with the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, henceforth referred to as The Resolution. If the DPP is sincere about the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, then Tsai Ing-wen cannot repudiate the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, and "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force."

Full Text below:

Tsai Ing-wen is once again paying lip service to the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Once again, the DPP has returned to its old tricks. It is playing word games with the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, henceforth referred to as The Resolution.

The Resolution was first announced in May 1999. Chen Shui-bian used it to pave the way for his 2000 presidential campaign. It was a key element of his "New Centrist Path." The Resolution states that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. According to its current constitution it is known as the Republic of China, But it has no connection with the Peoples Republic of China. Any changes to its current independent status, must be approved by all inhabitants of Taiwan, via popular referendum."

The Resolution makes two major points. One. It recognizes the Republic of China and the ROC Constitution. Two. It repudiates the Taiwan independence Party Platform, which calls for the establishment of a Republic of Taiwan, the authoring of a new constitution, and the holding of a Taiwan Independence Referendum. It advanced the notion that in order to change the Republic of China's independent status, a referendum must first be held. It replaced the Taiwan Independence Referendum with a Reunification Referendum.

But the DPP usually plays two tricks when it invokes The Resolution. One. It simplifies its statement to read, "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It is currently referred to as the Republic of China." It then adds the superfluous clause, "Taiwan's future must be decided by 23 million people." But this is not what The Resolution actually said. Instead, this is taken from the "inhabitants self-determination" slogan of the 60s. It nullifies the clause stipulating that "any change in the independent status of the Republic of China requires a public referendum" and a "reunification referendum." About these it is dead silent. The phrase "it is currently referred to as the Republic of China," together with "Taiwan's future must be decided by 23 million people," implies "inhabitants self-determination." It implies that "in the future it may become a Nation of Taiwan, simply by holding a Taiwan Independence Referendum.

Two, When the DPP invokes The Resolution, it often quotes it out of context. It often quotes it selectively. In order to facilitate Chen Shui-bian's 2000 presidential campaign, The Resolution replaced the Taiwan Independence Party Platform. But when the Chen Shui-bian regime found itself in hot water, it came back to the Taiwan Independence Constitution and Taiwan Independence Referendum. Eventually the Resolution for a Normal Nation, which called for the "rectification of names" and the "authoring of a new constitution" as soon as possible, replaced the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Today Tsai Ing-wen has entered the 2012 presidential race. Therefore the DPP has reintroduced the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. But the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the Resolution for a Normal Nation are still on the books. Which is valid and which is not? Who knows?

In fact, Chen Shui-bian's "Five Noes" is fully consistent with the spirit of The Resolution. The Five Noes state that, no, the DPP will not declare Taiwan independence, it will not change the name of the country, it will not promote the Two States Theory, it will not call for a public referendum to change the status quo, and it will not abolish the National Unification Guidelines and the National Unification Council, Each of these is an expression of the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. But once Chen Shui-bian left office, he returned to his "Four Demands and One Denial," which demanded Taiwan independence, demanded the rectification of names, demanded a new constitution, demanded economic development, and denied any divide between left and right, but only a divide between reunification and independence. This, needless to say, utterly shredded The Resolution. .

Tsai Ing-wen claims she has returned to The Resolution. But she has yet to invoke any "Five Noes" type arguments to support her claim. On the contrary, she has explicitly refused to recognize One China, Different Interpretations. She has therefore negated the spirit of The Resolution. The Resolution affirms the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution. One China, Different Interpretations affirms the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution. It seeks common ground with the People's Republic of China. Tsai's rejection of One China, Different Interpretations is nothing less than a rejection of the Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution. It clearly contradicts the spirit of The Resolution. Worse still, Tsai Ing-wen alleges that the Republic of China is a "government in exile." This is clearly inconsistent with the spirit of The Resolution.

Are Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP sincere about returning to the Resolution on Taiwan's Future? If they are, they should nullify the Taiwan Independence Party Platform and the Resolution for a Normal Nation. They should stop talking out of both sides of their mouth. They should stop contradicting themselves. Furthermore, they should recognize the ROC and the ROC Constitution. They should replace their call for a public referendum on independence, with a call for a public referendum on reunification. That would be consistent with the Resolution on Taiwan's Future.

The Resolution on Taiwan's Future has several logical defects. One. The Taiwan Independence Party Platform and Resolution for a Normal Nation co-exist alongside the Resolution on Taiwan's Future. Which are valid? Which is null and void? Which applies? Which does not? Two. DPP political leaders have zero credibility. Chen Shui-bian went from Five Noes to Four Demands and One Denial in the blink of an eye. Clearly DPP reassurances regarding The Resolution guarantee nothing. Three. The Resolution is self-deception and deception of others. It was not advanced in good faith. It is a grab bag of truths, half truths, and lies. Tsai Ing-wen's intentions are clear from The Resolution. She is merely using The Resolution as a means of "backdoor listing." The Republic of China and the Republic of China Constitution are nowhere to be found. The spirit of the reunification referendum is nowhere to be found.

If the DPP is sincere about the Resolution on Taiwan's Future, then Tsai Ing-wen cannot repudiate the 1992 Consensus, One China, Different Interpretations, and "no [immediate] reunification, no independence, and no use of force."

看蔡英文如何玩弄台灣前途決議文
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.08.26

蔡英文在兩岸論述上回到《台灣前途決議文》，再度顯現了民進黨玩弄《台灣前途決議文》（下稱《決議文》）的一貫伎倆。

《決議文》發表於一九九九年五月，在為陳水扁競選二○○○年總統預設鋪墊，作為所謂「新中間路線」的支撐。《決議文》的關鍵語句為：台灣是一個主權獨立的國家……台灣固然依目前憲法稱為中華民國，但與中華人民共和國互不隸屬，任何有關獨立現狀的更動，都必須經台灣全體住民以公民投票方式決定。

其主要意義是：一、承認中華民國，也承認中華民國憲法。二、否定《台獨黨綱》的「建立台灣共和國及制定新憲法」及「台獨公投」，而主張在「更動（中華民國）獨立現狀」之時，始應進行公投；亦即由「台獨公投」轉為「統一公投」。

然而，民進黨在操作《決議文》時，卻常玩弄兩個花樣：一、將其簡化為「台灣是一主權獨立的國家，現在叫做中華民國」；然後畫蛇添足，加上「台灣的前途由兩千三百萬人民決定」一語，但此語並非出自《決議文》的主文，而是摘自六○年代「住民自決」的口號。然而，如此一來，《決議文》中「任何有關（中華民國）獨立現狀的更動必須公投」的「統一公投」即告消失，絕口不提；反而使「現在叫做中華民國」一語，因附加了「台灣前途由兩千三百萬人民決定」的「住民自決」之隱喻，而又成為「未來可以變成台灣國」的「台獨公投」潛台詞。

二、民進黨在操作《決議文》時，不但常常「斷章取義」，且根本是「選擇性地運用」。為了陳水扁競選二○○○年總統，以《決議文》壓過《台獨黨綱》；待陳水扁陷入執政危機，又轉回「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」；最後又以《正常國家決議文》（主張及早正名制憲），壓過了《台灣前途決議文》；如今蔡英文要參選二○一二總統，再又拾回《台灣前途決議文》，但《台獨黨綱》及《正常國家決議文》迄今亦仍是有效文件，蛇鼠一窩孰作主？

其實，陳水扁的「四不一沒有」，才是完全符合《決議文》精神的；不宣布台獨，不更動國號，不推動兩國論入憲，不推動改變現狀的統獨公投，沒有廢除國統綱領與國統會的問題，每一項可謂皆是《台灣前途決議文》的引伸及落實。但是，在陳水扁卸任前，卻又走向「四要一沒有」；要獨立、要正名、要新憲、要發展，沒有左右路線問題、只有統獨問題。至此，《決議文》已被撕得粉碎。

蔡英文宣稱回到《決議文》，卻未採取「四不一沒有」之類的論述來支撐《決議文》，反而不啻以拒認「一中各表」來否定了《決議文》的精神。因為，《決議文》是承認中華民國及中華民國憲法的，而「一中各表」的主軸即是支持中華民國與中華民國憲法，並與中華人民共和國「求同存異」；而蔡英文否定了「一中各表」，就不啻是自我否定了中華民國及中華民國憲法的地位，這顯已違悖了《決議文》的精神。何況，蔡英文指「中華民國是流亡政府」，這當然也逾越了《決議文》的分寸。

蔡英文及民進黨若真要回到《台灣前途決議文》，首應終止《台獨黨綱》及《正常國家決議文》的效力，不能蛇鼠一窩，自相矛盾；再者，更必須回復「承認中華民國與中華民國憲法」及「以統一公投取代台獨公投」的主張，這應才是《台灣前途決議文》的本來面目。

《台灣前途決議文》有幾大罩門：一、與《台獨黨綱》及《正常國家決議文》並存，且皆有效（或皆無效），如何確定其效力？二、民進黨政治領袖的人格可信度極低，如陳水扁竟從「四不一沒有」翻覆至「四要一沒有」，當然不能確保《決議文》的效力。三、民進黨以《決議文》自欺欺人，不具忠誠，任意切割拼裝；以蔡英文如今所為，證諸《決議文》，只見她把《決議文》用為「借殼上市」的工具，將中華民國及中華民國憲法置於何地？又將「統一公投」的精神置於何地？

如果忠誠履行《台灣前途決議文》，蔡英文豈有否定「九二共識，一中各表」及「不統，不獨，不武」的餘地？